||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 441 (May)
||Adam Clements (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service, Grantham) for the prosecution.
||The defendant did not appear and was not represented.
||28 May 2002
Magistrates - Procedure - No case to answer - Defendant charged with dangerous driving - Justices acceding to submission of no case to answer - Justices refusing to consider careless driving as alternative offence on basis that defendant had not been found not guilty of dangerous driving - Whether justices in error - s 27 - s 24(1)(a).
Dismissal of a charge of dangerous driving by justices acceding to a submission of no case to answer was, by s27 of the in effect, a finding of not guilty for the purposes of s24(1)(a) of the and, in those circumstances, justices ought to consider the alternative offences specified in that latter provision. Accordingly, the justices in the instant case had erred in refusing to consider such alternatives on the basis that such a dismissal did not amount to a finding of not guilty.
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary