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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll