header-logo header-logo

ROAD TRAFFIC

20 August 2007
Issue: 7289 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Breckon v Director of Public Prosecutions [2007] EWHC 2013 (Admin), [2007] All ER (D) 135 (Aug)

Section 15(2) of RTOA 1988 does not apply to preliminary tests under the Road Traffic Act 1988, ss 6 or 6A.

The purpose of the preliminary test is to obtain an indication of whether or not the proportion of alcohol is likely to exceed the prescribed limit, not to determine whether the limit has been exceeded, which is the function of the specimens taken for analysis under s 7.

There is, therefore, no statutory obligation on the prosecution to adduce evidence of the actual figures recorded at the roadside test.

Issue: 7289 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

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 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
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll