The court considered the admissibility of evidence produced by a prescribed device for measuring breath alcohol levels.
Held: The record (the printout from a Lion Intoximeter device) was admissible either under the statutory provision without the necessity of calling any witness to produce it or as real evidence, if produced by someone who was able to identify the exhibit and link it to the case against the defendant.
Stocker LJ said: ‘The question can be put in this form? Was the printout admissible? The argument that it was not depends upon the proposition that is admissibility arises solely from the terms of section 10(3) of the Act of 1972. For my part, I do not agree that such admissibility does arise solely through the terms of that section. In my view it was, quite apart from that section, an admissible document at common law as representing real evidence.’
Roch LJ: ‘As real evidence, such a printout can be proved, as any other real evidence can be proved, namely by being produced as an exhibit by a witness who can identify what the exhibit is and link it to the case against a defendant. Once the exhibit is properly proved in that way it speaks for itself.’
Judges:
Stocker LJ, Roch LJ
Citations:
[1990] RTR 208
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Griffiths v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 22-Mar-2007
Photographic output was part of device process
The defendant appealed his conviction for speeding, complaining at the technical accuracy of the Gatso camera used, and the use of photographs developed from pictures taken by the cameras.
Held: The photographs used for analysis were records . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Road Traffic
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.250486
