Kemsley v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 4 Feb 2004

The defendant appealed a conviction for driving with excess alcohol. She said she had not first been cautioned when interviewed after an accident and that her admission that she had been driving should not have been allowed in evidence.
Held: That admission had properly been admitted. An expert for the defence had said that the intoximeter device had been modified in answer to criticisms of its inability to differentiate the presence of mouth alcohol. The device was not the same as that which has been approved, the results of its use cannot be admissible even where it was substantially like an approved device, and even if its performance is the same as that of an approved device. Since it had been modified, it was no longer an approved device. However if the judge had accepted that it was not an approved device, the reading could not have been admitted.


[2004] EWHC 278 (Admin)




Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)(a)


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBreckon v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 22-Aug-2007
The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol.
Held: There was no requirement that the prosecutor should produce the results of the roadside breath test in evidence, and the breathalyser was of the approved . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Crime

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.197971