|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Oladimeji v Director of Public Prosecutions  EWHC 1199 (Admin) (11 May 2006)
Cite as:  EWHC 1199 (Admin)
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE JACK
|DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS||Respondent|
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR ROBERT O'SULLIVAN (instructed by Crown Prosecution Services, Kingston Branch, Tolworth Tower, Surbiton, Surrey KT6 7DS) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
Crown Copyright ©
"(1) A case stated by the magistrates' court shall state the facts found by the court and the question or questions of law or jurisdiction on which the opinion of the High Court is sought.
(2) Where one of the questions on which the opinion of the High Court is sought is whether there was evidence on which the magistrates' court could come to its decision, the particular finding of fact which it is claimed cannot be supported by the evidence before the magistrates' court shall be specified in the case.
(3) Unless one of the questions on which the opinion of the High Court is sought is whether there was evidence on which the magistrates' court could come to its decision, the case shall not contain a statement of evidence."
"... while accepting Dr Lyons' point about the period of time between the two specimens he [that is Dr Josse] indicated that the irritation could have started even before the first specimen was given."
"Dr Josse indicated when giving evidence that he did not disagree with Dr Lyons over quite a bit of his evidence."
The first question posed in the case is as follows:
"1. Were we right to conclude that the Evidence of Dr Lyons and Dr Josse was substantially in agreement?"
"2. Were we right to conclude that there was no evidence to support Dr Josse's conclusion that the defendant may have been suffering from a narrowing of the airways?
3. Were we right to conclude that Dr Gupta's evidence was unspecific to the date in question?"
"4. Were we right to conclude that the defendant's evidence was substantially at odds with that of the police officers at the roadside and therefore do not find the evidence of the defendant credible?"