e-lawresources
Providing resources for studying law
 
Custom Search
   Home      Duck v Peacock
 
 
Duck v Peacock [1949] 1 All ER 318 King's Bench Division

The defendant was charged with the offence of being drunk in charge of a vehicle. At the time of his arrest he was sleeping in the car having been out for the evening drinking. The Magistrate did not impose a disqualification but on a case stated appeal, a disqualification was ordered.

Lord Goddard CJ

'This is a question, not of driving, but of being in charge of a car. If what is suggested here were a special reason, it would mean that a man who had taken too much to drink so that he was unfit to manage the car or be in charge of it could escape the penalty of disqualification merely by stopping and going to sleep in the car. The court is not going to give any countenance to such a reason as that. In my opinion, on the facts found by the magistrate there was no ground for saying that any special reason existed for not imposing the disqualification which Parliament has decreed shall otherwise be imposed. Therefore, this case must be remitted to the magistrate with an intimation that we think he was wrong in law, and the respondent must be disqualified for the statutory period.’
 
Back to lecture outline on actus reus in Criminal Law