Director 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 give a false reading by failing to distinguish mouth alcohol from the alcohol in the exhaled alreolar (deep lung) breath. The prosecution appealed.
Held: It was not open to a court to look at whether it was Wednesbury unreasonable for the secretary to approve a type of machine. The issue was as to the admissibility of evidence. Any challenge as to reliability was a separate issue. The ability to detect mouth alcohol was not relevant where experts had approved the machine.


Lord Justice Rose and Mr Justice Gibbs


Times 09-Jul-2002, [2002] EWHC Admin 1720, [2003] RTR 18


Road Traffic Act 1988 7(1)(a)


England and Wales


CitedDirector 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 . .
CitedBrown v Gallagher HCJ 15-May-2002
The appellant contended that the Intoximeter which had been used to measure the level of alcohol in his breath, had not been manufactured by the approved manufacturer, and did not therefore satisfy the type approval, and that the inconsistency in . .

Cited by:

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

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.174275