Denneny v Harding: 1986

Although a police officer was able to give evidence about what he saw on the Intoximeter display panel, the evidence of the officer in the case went no further than the evidence of the readings of alcohol in the appellant’s breath. In order to prove that the machine was producing reliable evidence: ‘it had to be accompanied by evidence of the calibration of the machine, both before and after the specimen of breath had been provided by the defendant and of the date and time when the test was taken. The witness also had to be in a position to inform the justices that the figures for calibration which he saw, if he did, on the display panel were within permissible limits and that therefore the device was functioning properly.
A police officer is not in a position to give this evidence unless he is one who has been trained upon the use of this device and its manner of performance. Put another way, he has to be one who understands the calibration process and recognises that unless the result of the process lies with accepted limits the machine is not calibrating as it should and is therefore unreliable.


[1986] RTR 350

Cited by:

CitedSneyd v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 24-Feb-2006
The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. He complained that though the officers suspected him of having consumed alcohol, they asked him whether he had been drinking without cautioning him, and that no print out . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.240390