Director of Public Prosecutions v Steven Ward
[2024] EWHC 1763 (Admin)
Director Of Public Prosecutions v Kelsey Christina Ridings
6 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 498 (Admin)
High Court
A woman was found not guilty of drink-driving despite testing over the limit after a car accident. The judge made a mistake about the rules of evidence, so the not guilty verdict was overturned, and there will be a new trial.
Key Facts
- •Respondent involved in a road traffic collision.
- •Respondent consumed alcohol after the collision.
- •Respondent provided a breath specimen with 82mg/100ml alcohol.
- •Magistrates found Respondent was not over the limit at the time of the accident or before consuming alcohol at Paige Azad's home.
- •Magistrates acquitted the Respondent.
- •Prosecution appealed the acquittal.
Legal Principles
Sections 15(2) and (3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 impose a legal burden of proof on the defendant to show, to the civil standard, that post-incident alcohol consumption explains excess alcohol.
R v Drummond [2002] EWCA Crim 527 [2002] 2 Cr App R 25
Unless it is obvious that post-offence alcohol consumption explains excess alcohol, the defendant must provide medical or scientific evidence.
DPP v Dukolli [2009] EWHC 3097 (Admin)
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
Magistrates misdirected themselves on the burden and standard of proof. They applied the criminal standard of proof instead of the civil standard required for the defence of post-incident alcohol consumption.
Acquittal quashed.
The Magistrates' misdirection on the burden of proof was a material error of law.
Case remitted for retrial.
A new trial is necessary due to the material error in the original trial.
No order as to costs.
The question of costs is left to the magistrates' court in the event of a subsequent conviction.