Afolayan v Crown Prosecution Service

Magistrates have a wide discretion to adjourn a summary trial. Their decision is challengeable only where it falls outside that discretion. In assessing an adjournment, the court may balance the public interest in a trial proceeding, expedition, and any prejudice to the parties.

Where the prosecution relies on evidence about the taking and analysis of a blood specimen, the magistrates may determine procedural compliance from the evidence available. They may prefer police evidence that the procedure was followed and rely on undisputed evidence that a properly sealed and identified specimen reached the laboratory. An incomplete procedural form does not require acquittal where the totality of the evidence establishes the case beyond reasonable doubt.

The appellant was convicted after being stopped while driving and providing a breath specimen above the statutory limit. Because the breath reading was below 50 micrograms per 100 millilitres, a blood specimen was taken and later analysed.

The prosecution case was adjourned when the medical practitioner who took the specimen had not been warned to attend. The magistrates later heard the case without him. The appellant challenged the adjournment, the lawfulness of the stop, and the magistrates’ conclusion that the blood-sampling and analysis procedures had been properly followed.

1. Adjournment. The magistrates’ decision to adjourn the trial on 1 July 2011 was within their wide discretion. They had balanced the public interest in conducting the trial, the need for summary matters to be dealt with expeditiously, and the absence of prejudice to the appellant. The adjournment gave the prosecution no practical advantage because the medical practitioner remained absent when the case was eventually heard.
2. Stop and roadside procedure. The magistrates were entitled to accept the police officer’s evidence. The time of the stop, the direction of travel, the officer’s previous dealings with the appellant, the apparent connection with a drinking establishment, and the appellant’s ceremonial dress provided reasonable grounds for the stop. The smell of alcohol then provided grounds to require the roadside procedure.
3. Blood specimen. The magistrates were entitled to find beyond reasonable doubt that the blood-sampling procedure had been properly followed. The police officers gave evidence that the procedure was correctly conducted, and the magistrates were entitled to prefer that evidence to the appellant’s contrary account.
4. The incomplete section B:20 of form MG DD/A created a potential evidential problem, but it did not determine the issue. The magistrates could rely on the undisputed evidence that a sealed and correctly identified specimen reached the forensic scientist, who conducted a satisfactory analysis. The appellant had also been given a specimen for independent analysis but did not have it tested.
5. The appeal was dismissed. There were no applications concerning costs.

The judgment describes an appeal from the magistrates’ decision following the appellant’s conviction. No citation for the magistrates’ decision is stated in the judgment.