Road traffic law

Drink/drive offencesIn R (on the application of Bozkurt) v Thames Magistrates' Court (2001) The Times, 26 June, the Divisional Court had to consider the role of an interpreter in a case where a person arrested following suspicion of a drink/drive offence spoke very little English.

An interpreter had been called to assist when the police conducted the normal procedure at a police station.

The same interpreter attended court two days later and, in the absence of legal representation, introduced the defendant to the duty solicitor and was present during the ensuing interview.

The Divisional Court noted that the interpreter was bound by a duty of confidentiality not to disclose anything which occurred at that interview, but the prosecution might have to call upon the interpreter to establish that the proper procedures had been followed at the police station.

Note 13A to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) code of practice C indicated that if an interpreter was needed as a witness for the prosecution, a different interpreter should act as court interpreter; further, contrary to Metropolitan Police guidance, the duty solicitor had not been informed that the interpreter had acted in that role at the police station.

A district judge had refused to grant a stay of the drink/drive proceedings as an abuse of process or to prevent the prosecution from relying on certain evidence under section 78 of PACE (exclusion of unfair evidence).

The Divisional Court upheld the ruling of the district judge; there had been no question of mala fides; and, although it would have been preferable for the services of a different interpreter to have been used (or consent obtained from the defendant), if the prosecution should call the interpreter as a witness it would only be for giving formal evidence as to events at the police station, and any issue that might arise at the trial could be dealt with adequately under section 78.InsuranceA motor insurance policy, drafted in 'user-friendly' language, covered loss or damage arising from theft of the vehicle, but excepted from that element of cover any loss which arose from the ignition keys having been left in or on the vehicle.

The exception is to be construed bearing in mind its purpose: encouraging policy holders to take precautions in relation to the keys to reduce the risk of opportunist theft.

It is not appropriate to imply into the exception inclusion of the word 'unattended' and the insurer is not required to show non-attendance before being able to bring itself within the exception and avoid payment for loss (Hayward v Norwich Union Insurance Ltd (2001) The Times, 8 March).

By Paul Niekirk, Barrister