header-logo header-logo

04 April 2008
Issue: 7315 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

CRIMINAL LITIGATION

R (Thornhill) v Uxbridge Magistrates’ Court [2008] EWHC 508 (Admin), [2008] All ER (D) 08 (Mar)

The accused was arrested near the scene of a road traffic accident. It was accepted that he had a medical reason precluding him from providing a specimen of breath. He was asked to provide a specimen of urine instead.

He refused. He was charged with failing to provide a specimen of breath. The prosecution later sought to amend the charge to allege failure to provide a specimen of urine. By that time the sixmonth time limit for commencing proceedings in respect of the failure to supply a specimen of urine had expired.

HELD There is a distinct difference between a failure to provide a specimen of urine and one of breath. In those circumstances the decision of the justices to permit the amendment of the charge had to be quashed. It was therefore unnecessary to consider whether the amendment was or was not in the interests of justice.
 

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll