Director of Public Prosecutions v Andrew Earle Anthony Brown, Jose Teixeira: QBD 16 Nov 2001

Where a defendant to a charge of driving with excess alcohol, sought to test the accuracy of the Intoximeter, the Magistrates should consider whether the evidence was as to the particular Intoximeter used, and was of sufficient quality to displace the presumption in law that the Intoximeter system in general works. The evidence in such cases did not go to the ability of the equipment to measure the levels of alcohol in the deep lungs. Evidence that the machines might misread alcohol held in the mouth was not relevant since each defendant admitted that no such alcohol was present. Evidence should not be put before the Court as to whether the ECIR instrument should not have received the approval of the Secretary of State and/or that approval should have been revoked and/or that it had been modified


Lord Justice Pill, Mr Justice Cresswell


Times 03-Dec-2001, [2002] RTR 395, CO/3794/2001, CO/3710/2001


Road Traffic Act 1988 5 15(2)


England and Wales


ApprovedRegina v Skegness Magistrates’ Court ex parte Cardy 1985
Representations that the Intoximeter or other device used for measuring breath alcohol, should not have been approved or that the Secretary of State should have withdrawn approval in respect of the device should be addressed to the Secretary of . .

Cited by:

CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Memery QBD 4-Jul-2002
The Crown Court had concluded that the intoximeter EC/IR was not a validly approved device or if it was that it was unreasonable for the Secretary of State to have approved it since it was a device which detected mouth alcohol, i.e. was liable to . .
CitedGrant v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 22-Jan-2003
The appellant had been convicted of failing to give a breath test, and of driving with excess alcohol. He had falsely claimed that he had had a drink in the five minutes before being asked to take the test, and said the officer should not have . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Wood; Director of Public Prosecutions v McGillicuddy Admn 19-Jan-2006
Each defendant sought disclosure of materials concerning the intoximeter instruments, having been charged with driving with excess alcohol. The defendants said that the meters were inaccurate and that the manufacturers were in effect part of the . .
CitedRose v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 11-Mar-2010
The defendant appealed by case stated his conviction of driving with excess alcohol. He said that the device used was not an approved one. He also said that the reading was invaid in including a reading of mouth alcohol. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Evidence

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.166814