Trinidad Office


Tobago office




Author: site_admin

Martin George & Company > Articles posted by site_admin (Page 58)

Haines v Roberts

All England Law Reports/1953/Volume 1 /Haines v Roberts - [1953] 1 All ER 344 [1953] 1 All ER 344   Haines v Roberts QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION  LORD GODDARD CJ, CROOM-JOHNSON AND PEARSON JJ  26 JANUARY 1953  Street Traffic - Charge of motor vehicle while under influence of drink - "In charge" - Vehicle left in public yard - Road Traffic Act, 1930 (c 43), s 15(1).   Where a person leaves a motor vehicle in a road or public place away from home, he is in charge of that vehicle until he puts it into the charge of somebody else.   Quaere: whether a person remains in charge of a motor...

Continue reading

Director of Public Prosecutions V. Watkins

ICLR: King's/Queen's Bench Division/1989/DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS v. WATKINS - [1989] Q.B. 821 [1989] Q.B. 821 [QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION] DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS v. WATKINS   1989 Jan. 23, 24; March 1 Taylor L.J. and Henry J.  Road Traffic - Drunk in charge of motor vehicle - "In charge" - Defendant in driving seat of vehicle not owned by him - Defendant holding bunch of keys - No evidence that key in hand suitable to start engine - Whether defendant in charge - Whether likelihood of defendant driving car - Road Traffic Act 1972 (c. 20), ss. 5, 6 (as amended by Transport Act 1981 (c. 56),...

Continue reading


Blackstone's Criminal Practice 2018/Part C Road Traffic Offences/Section C5 Drink-Driving and Drug-Driving Offences/DRIVING, OR BEING IN CHARGE, WITH ALCOHOL CONCENTRATION ABOVE PRESCRIBED LIMIT/Defences Defences C5.49 The Statutory 'Hip-flask' Defence Section 15(3) of the RTOA 1988 (see C5.41) affords a defence to a charge under the RTA 1988, s. 5, where the defendant claims that the fact that he has alcohol in his body above the prescribed limit is attributable to consumption after the event to an extent that, but for that later consumption of alcohol, evidence from the specimen would not have resulted in an offence being made out. Once the statutory assumption...

Continue reading

Regina v Blackman

Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWCA Crim 190   Case No: 2016/05551/B1 & 2016/05552/B1 IN THE COURT MARTIAL APPEAL COURT ON A REFERENCE BY THE CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION ON APPEAL FROM A COURT MARTIAL AT BULFORD (THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL)   Royal Courts of JusticeStrand, London, WC2A 2LL   Date: 15/03/2017Before:   THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES THE PRESIDENT OF THE QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION MR JUSTICE OPENSHAW MR JUSTICE SWEENEY   -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between:  Regina -  and - Alexander Wayne Blackman                     Respondent   Appellant   - - - - - -...

Continue reading

Robinson v The State

Trinity Term [2015] UKPC34 Privy Council Appeal No 0038 of 2013 JUDGMENT Robinson (Appellant) v The State (Respondent) (Trinidad and Tobago) From the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago before Lady Hale Lord Kerr Lord Clarke Lord Hughes Lord Toulson JUDGMENT GIVEN ON 20 July 2015 Heard on 16 June 2015 Appellant                                                                                                                  Respondent Paul Bowen QC   ...

Continue reading

Daniel v The State

 [2012] UKPC15 Privy Council Appeal No 0109 of 2009 JUDGMENT Marcus Jason Daniel (Appellant) v The State (Respondent)  From the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago  before  Lord Phillips Lord Clarke Lord Dyson Lord Sumption Lord Reed   JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY LORD DYSON ON 23 May 2012   Heard on 8 March 2012                      Appellant                                                                              Respondent         Julian Knowles QC                                                                   Peter Knox QC         Ms Michelle Butler                                                                     Aidan Casey      (Instructed by Simons                                                            (Instructed by Charles         Muirhead & Burton                                                                     Russell LLP) Solicitors)   LORD DYSON: On 14 December 2005, the appellant was convicted at the Port of Spain...

Continue reading

Brown v The State

 [2012] UKPC2 Privy Council Appeal No 0107 of 2010 JUDGMENT Nigel Brown (Appellant) v The State (Respondent) From the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago  before  Lord Brown Lord Kerr Lord Clarke Lord Dyson Sir Declan Morgan   JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY LORD KERR ON 7 FEBRUARY 2012 Heard on 20 October 2011   Appellant                                                                              Respondent Julian Knowles QC                                                                   Peter Knox QC Mark Summers   (Instructed by Simons                                                            (Instructed by Charles Muirhead & Burton)                                                                    Russell LLP)     LORD KERR: On the morning of 28 October 2004, a 76 year old man called Lloyd Bailey was with his wife, Evelyn, in their home in Second...

Continue reading

DANIEL M’NAGHTEN’S CASE. May 26, June 19, 1843.

DANIEL M'NAGHTEN'S CASE. May 26, June 19, 1843. [Mews' Dig. i. 349; iv. 1112. S.C. 8 Scott N.R. 595; 1 C. and K. 130; 4 St. Tr. N.S, 847. The rules laid down in this case have been accepted in the main as an authoritative statement of the law (cf. Beg. v. Townley, 1863, 3 F. and F. 839; Beg. v. Southey, 1865, 4 F. and F. 864; Reg. v. Leigh, 1866, 4 F. and F. 919). But they have been adversely criticised both by legal and medical text writerz (see 2 Steph. Hist Crim. Law, 124-186; Mayne Ind. Crinm. Law (ed....

Continue reading


Weekly Law Reports (ICLR)/1979/Volume 2 /WONG KAM-MING  APPELLANT AND THE QUEEN  RESPONDENT - [1979] 2 WLR 81   [1979] 2 WLR 81 WONG KAM-MING  APPELLANT AND THE QUEEN  RESPONDENT   [PRIVY COUNCIL] [APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF HONG KONG]   1978 Oct. 17, 18, 19;Dec. 20 Lord Diplock, Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone, Lord Salmon, Lord Edmund-Davies and Lord Keith of Kinkel Crime -- Evidence -- Confession -- Admissibility -- Voir dire -- Defendant cross-examined as to truth of statement and admitting participation in offence -- Whether cross-examination proper -- Statement ruled inadmissible -- Crown adducing evidence of and cross-examining, on defendant's admissions in voir dire -- Whether...

Continue reading


ICLR: King's/Queen's Bench Division/1963/Volume 1/REGINA v. RICE AND OTHERS. - [1963] 1 Q.B. 857 [1963] 1 Q.B. 857 [COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL] REGINA v. RICE AND OTHERS. 1962 Nov. 26, 27, 28. Ashworth, Salmon and Winn JJ. 1963 Jan. 29. Crime - Evidence - Confession - Co-defendant, by - Statement by one defendant implicating other co-defendants - Prosecution's omission to prove statement - Statement not produced by maker - Maker cross-examined by co-defendant - Whether prosecution may cross-examine maker on contents of statement - Whether prosecution may reveal making of statement by cross-examination of maker or co-defendant.   Evidence - Documentary - Airline ticket - Used ticket bearing names...

Continue reading
error: Content is protected !!