header-logo header-logo

CRIMINAL LITIGATION

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

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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The dangers of uncritical artificial intelligence (AI) use in legal practice are no longer hypothetical. In this week's NLJ, Dr Charanjit Singh of Holborn Chambers examines cases where lawyers relied on ‘hallucinated’ citations — entirely fictitious authorities generated by AI tools
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
back-to-top-scroll