Huntley, R (on the application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions

Suspicion that a person was driving while over the alcohol limit does not prove that the person was driving. A conviction for driving with excess alcohol requires evidence proving driving to the requisite standard. The fact that the accused was arrested on suspicion of driving cannot, without more, establish that element of the offence.

The claimant appealed by way of case stated against his conviction by the Haringey Justices on 9 June 2003 for driving a motor vehicle after consuming excess alcohol, contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

At trial, the prosecution evidence was accepted up to the police-station breath-test procedure. The prosecution relied on a statement referring to the claimant’s arrest on suspicion of driving. The justices treated that fact as sufficient evidence that he had been driving. The central issue was whether an arrest on suspicion of driving proved the fact of driving.

1. Appeal allowed. The conviction was set aside.
2. The prosecution had to prove that the claimant had been driving the vehicle. The justices’ own finding was that he had been arrested on suspicion of driving. Suspicion did not amount to evidence proving that he was driving.
3. There was no other evidence establishing that element of the offence. In addition, the evidence concerning the critical matters was hearsay, although that point was not necessary to determine the appeal.
4. The justices therefore had no proper basis for concluding that the case had been proved against the claimant. No further order concerning costs was necessary.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Allowed the appeal by way of case stated and set aside the conviction.
• Haringey Justices: Convicted the claimant on 9 June 2003 of driving a motor vehicle after consuming excess alcohol.