“A constable must, on requiring any person to provide a specimen in pursuance of this section, warn him that a failure to provide it may render him liable to prosecution.”
“8. Disclosure refers to providing the defence with copies of, or access to, any material which might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the case for the prosecution against the accused, or of assisting the case for the accused, and which has not previously been disclosed. 9. Prosecutors will only be expected to anticipate what material might weaken their case or strengthen the defence in the light of information available at the time of the disclosure decision, and this may include information revealed during questioning. 10. Generally, material which can reasonably be considered capable of undermining the prosecution case against the accused or assisting the defence case will include anything that tends to show a fact inconsistent with the elements of the case that must be proved by the prosecution.”
“In conducting an investigation, the investigator should pursue all reasonable lines of enquiry, whether these point towards or away from the suspect. What is reasonable in each case will depend on the circumstances.”
“Those who prepare and conduct prosecutions owe a duty to the courts to ensure that all relevant evidence of help to an accused is either led by them or made available to the defence…. The judges will ensure that the Crown gets no advantage from neglect of duty on the part of the prosecution.”
“…there exists more than a fanciful chance that had this tape been available there would have been material contained on it upon which the appellant would properly have wished to cross-examine Mr Apperley. The matter is not marginal or tangential. The tape would have constituted a contemporary record of the words the officer spoke as he followed the appellant in the car.”
“We make it clear that nothing is to be inferred from this judgment to the effect that a breach of the mandatory requirements of paragraph 5.1 of the code will generally or even frequently give rise to a state of affairs in which it would be right to stop the prosecution: far from it. We have emphasised the particular specific features of this case however which, upon the facts here, do properly give rise to that result.”
“9. Annexed to the papers is the 100 MG DD/A form and Mr Ley argues that the only way of circumventing the evidence of the officer would have been the CCTV. We do not accept that that analysis is accurate. Indeed, the form, which undoubtedly was signed by the appellant and was completed by the officer, contains extensively the precise questions to be asked and the order in which those questions must be asked. It was open to the Justices, having heard the sergeant, to accept that he performed his responsibilities accurately. Equally, it was open to the Justices to accept the evidence of the appellant that this task had not been done in the way the sergeant did it. Although the officer asserted that this procedure had been conducted in the custody area, if that material was not on the tape it would not have established that the procedure was not conducted properly, merely that it was not conducted in the place where it was believed to have been conducted. 10. In my judgment, it was entirely open to the Justices to conclude that this prosecution was not an abuse of process and I would answer the question stated in the negative, i.e., it was not Wednesbury unreasonable to hold that there was no abuse of process when the video recording of the breathalyser procedure had deliberately and contrary to the code of practice and a defence request been reused. We do not accept that such a recording would necessarily conclusively have proved whether or not the correct procedure had been followed at the police station.”