A district judge had been correct to refuse to order the Crown to disclose a sample of blood taken from a motorist who had been arrested for driving under the influence of cannabis. The motorist had declined to take the sample when it was offered to him in compliance with the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 s.15(5) and his application had been a fishing expedition made in the hope that it might undermine the prosecution’s case.
The “iniquity exception” did not defeat a claim for legal professional privilege where there was no nexus between the third party wrongdoer and the client which took the lawyer/client relationship outside the ordinary scope of professional employment. The third party’s wrongdoing was parasitic upon an existing lawyer/client relationship, which was created and continued for a normal and legitimate purpose.
The fact that voluntary intoxication might sometimes explain a person’s inability to provide a specimen of breath did not mean that that person would therefore have a “reasonable excuse” for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act 1988 s.7(6). The scope of a reasonable excuse for s.7(6) purposes would always be a question of fact for the court.
A sentence of three-and-a-half-years’ imprisonment for causing death by dangerous driving was not reduced in circumstances where the trial judge had taken all the mitigating circumstances into account and had been unimpressed by the extent of the driver’s remorse.
The court construed the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 s.55A, which allowed subcontracting by private hire vehicle operators.