dpp_hill1991
The prosecutor appealed against dismissal of a summons alleging that the driver had driven with excess alcohol. The magistrates had concluded that the intoximeter must have been faulty.
Held: The conclusion that the device was unreliable was based on evidence which did not justify it.
Neill LJ said: ‘In this case it seems to us that if the defendant were to be believed, however credible a witness he appeared to be and however well he gave his evidence, it would involve three very surprising consequences: (1) that the intoximeter itself was faulty; (2) that not only was that faulty but the Drager Alert Device was also faulty, and finally that there was some explanation other than drink to account for the evidence of glazed vision which was not only given by the police, but was accepted by the Justices.’
Neill LJ
[1991] RTR 35
Cited by:
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Spurrier QBD 21-Jul-1999
It was not absolutely necessary for a defendant who asserted that a Lion Intoximeter was faulty because of a disparity between the reading and what had been drunk, to bring expert evidence to rebut the statutory presumption that the Intoximeter was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Road Traffic
Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.276431