The defendant appealed his conviction for driving with excess alcohol, arguing that the prosecution had failed to provide the roadside breath test figures.
Held: The appeal failed, and was indeed hopeless. Pill LJ said: ‘The specimens of breath which established whether or not a defendant has committed an offence under section 5(1) of the 1988 Act, are those which may be required of a defendant at the police station under section 7 of the Act, the two specimens of breath mentioned in section 7(1)(a). The requirement under section 15(2) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 to ‘take into account’ the specimen of breath is, in relation to the roadside test, no more than a requirement to ensure that the section 6 procedure which led to the arrest, and to the section 7 requirement, has been correctly followed.’ There was no obligation to disclose the figures of the roadside breath test.
Judges:
Pill LJ
Citations:
[2007] EWHC 100 (Admin), [2007] 4 All ER 1135
Links:
Statutes:
Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)(a), Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 15(2)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Badkin v Director of Public Prosecutions 1988
The defendant driver had provided two specimens of breath at the police station. The device used failed to provide a printout and the constable operating it decided that it could be unreliable. He required the defendant to provide a specimen of . .
Cited – O’Sullivan v Director of Public Prosecutions 27-Mar-2000
Where a motorist challenges the accuracy of the intoximeter, there is only an evidential burden on him. . .
Cited – Lomas v Bowler 1984
The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. He had wanted to bring his own expert evidence. At the roadside, he had failed fully to inflate the device.
Held: The trial court had been entitled to be satisfied . .
Cited – Murphy v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 20-Jun-2006
The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the prosecutor should have put in evidence the results of the roadside breath test. Mitting J referred to the case of Badkin: ‘But nothing in the judgment of Glidewell LJ leads to the conclusion that . .
Cited – Jasper v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Feb-2000
Grand Chamber – The defendants had been convicted after the prosecution had withheld evidence from them and from the judge under public interest immunity certificates. They complained that they had not had fair trials.
Held: The right was . .
Cited – O’Sullivan v Director of Public Prosecutions 27-Mar-2000
Where a motorist challenges the accuracy of the intoximeter, there is only an evidential burden on him. . .
Cited – Fox v Chief Constable of Gwent HL 1986
The driver left an accident. The police entered his home unlawfully, and on his refusal to supply a breath test, he was arrested and charged with faiing to supply.
Held: A lawful arrest is not an essential requirement before a breath test, and . .
Cited – O’Sullivan v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 25-Feb-2005
After routine procedures were followed at the police station, the police took a specimen of breath over two hours after those used for analysis to see if the defendant was then fit to leave. It showed a reading consistent with the analysis of the . .
Cited – Zafar v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 1-Nov-2004
The defendant appealed his conviction for failing a breath test. He said that since the meter could be affected by mouth alcohol, the prosecutor had a duty to show that the reading arose from a breath taken deep from the lung by a deep breath.
Cited by:
Cited – Breckon v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 22-Aug-2007
The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol.
Held: There was no requirement that the prosecutor should produce the results of the roadside breath test in evidence, and the breathalyser was of the approved . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Road Traffic
Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.248833