A diabetic man convicted of driving while impaired and failing to give a breath sample is to face a re-trial after winning an appeal at Supreme Court.

Appellate Judge Norma Wade-Miller ruled that George Richard Oliver had not had a fair trial because Magistrate Edward King refused to allow him to call a doctor as an expert witness.

The judge decided that it was a central plank of Mr. Oliver's defence that he be allowed to call Dr. Joseph Herbert Woolf as a witness.

Mr. Oliver, 47, of Tea Rose Lane, Devonshire, is a type one diabetic who requires daily insulin shots.

At 11.35 p.m. on June 26 last year, Police found Mr. Oliver standing next to his burning car, which had crashed into a utility pole at Store Hill, Smith's Parish.

The Police officer noticed Mr. Oliver's eyes were glazed and his speech was slurred, and concluded the unusual smell on his breath was an intoxicant.

Mr. Oliver became un-cooperative at Hamilton Police Station, refusing to answer the desk sergeant and repeatedly asking why he was there.

At his trial in March, Mr. Oliver sought to explain his behaviour through medical evidence, but Mr. King would not allow him to call Dr. Woolf to testify.

His solicitor Susan Davis argued at appeal that Mr. King had wrongly directed himself in law by excluding Dr. Woolf.

She also asserted that Mr. King erred in stating that Mr. Oliver had claimed his ability was impaired due to alcohol and drugs (ie insulin).

She further argued that he wrongly interpreted the evidence of a defence witness, Stan Faries.

She said Mr. Faries had clearly stated that the "couple of drinks'' Mr.

Oliver consumed before the crash were soft drinks, yet Mr. King said the witness had meant alcoholic beverages.

Mrs Wade-Miller concluded: "Dr. Woolf's evidence is central to the defendant's case.

"Since the appellant (Mr. Oliver) has been deprived of the testimony of the doctor which supports the main plank of his defence, in my judgement justice is best served by allowing the appeal.

"For these reasons the appeal is allowed and I remit this matter back to the Magistrate's Court for a re-trial before another Magistrate so that justice will be seen to be done.''