QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
Thomas Bielecki |
Appellant |
|
- and - |
||
The Director of Public Prosecutions |
Respondent |
____________________
Tom Little (instructed by The Crown Prosecution Service) for the Respondent
Hearing dates: 12 May 2011
Further written submissions made between 19 July and 3 August
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Foskett:
Preamble
"In conclusion, I am satisfied that the there is no merit in the arguments advanced by Miss Calder in relation to the justices' findings concerning the breath test procedure. Fortunately the justices were not misled by such arguments but dealt with the case sensibly and robustly, making findings properly open to them on the unchallenged evidence they had heard."
Substantive judgment
i) Were we entitled to find that a valid requirement to provide specimens of breath for analysis had been made of the Appellant?ii) Were we entitled to find that the Appellant had been given a warning of prosecution pursuant to section 7(7) of the Road Traffic Act 1988?
iii) Were we entitled to find that the Appellant had no reasonable excuse for his failure to provide [such a specimen]?
a) Sgt Cart conducted the evidential breath test procedure in accordance with form MGDD/A, and explained the procedure to the Appellant via the accredited interpreter. PC Ward witnessed the procedure.
b) Although she did not circle "yes" or "no" to record the answer to the first question at section A14 of the form, Sgt Cart did tell the Appellant that she required him to provide two specimens of breath for analysis and did warn the Appellant on more than one occasion that if he did not provide these specimens he might be prosecuted.
c) Sgt Cart's words having been translated by the interpreter, the Appellant understood that he was required to provide specimens of breath and that failure to provide them would render him liable to prosecution.
d) The Appellant failed to provide either specimen of breath.
e) The Appellant had no reasonable excuse for his failure to provide.
"We are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Sgt Cart and PC Ward explained the testing procedure via the interpreter and PC Ward. Once the accredited interpreter arrived and went through what was being said to him by the sergeant, we believe Mr Bielecki understood the request being made of him, both formally and informally, by the sergeant [and] by the interpreter. PC Ward was a witness [to this]."
Conclusion
Case No: CO/5095/2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 10/10/2011
Before :
MR JUSTICE FOSKETT
Between :
Thomasz Bielecki | Appellant | |
- and - | ||
Director of Public Prosecutions | Respondent |
Renee Calder (instructed by Geoffrey Miller Solicitors) for the Appellant
Tom Little (instructed by The Crown Prosecution Service) for the Respondent
Mr Justice Foskett :
The request for certification that the decision reflected in the substantive judgment ([2011] EWHC 2245 (Admin)) involves a point of general public importance is refused. For the reasons given in the judgment (principally at paragraphs 6-8), it is not considered that the case raises any point of general public importance. In those circumstances, the question of the grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court does not arise.