DPP v Piscopo & DPP v Rukandin : notice required of 3-hour limit for refusals

The Supreme Court delivered its decision in two drink-driving cases yesterday.The first was DPP v Piscopo [2010] VSC 498. (For all the non-Maltese speakers reading this, Piscopo is pronounced Pis-cŏ-pō — short ‘o’, long ‘o’.) The second was DPP v Rukandin [2010] VSC 499. Both were very similar cases, with very similar reasons for decision.A …

Continue reading DPP v Piscopo & DPP v Rukandin : notice required of 3-hour limit for refusals

DPP v Piscopo & DPP v Rukandin : notice required of 3-hour limit for refusals

The Supreme Court delivered its decision in two drink-driving cases yesterday.The first was DPP v Piscopo [2010] VSC 498. (For all the non-Maltese speakers reading this, Piscopo is pronounced Pis-cŏ-pō — short ‘o’, long ‘o’.) The second was DPP v Rukandin [2010] VSC 499. Both were very similar cases, with very similar reasons for decision.A …

Continue reading DPP v Piscopo & DPP v Rukandin : notice required of 3-hour limit for refusals