O’Sullivan v Director of Public Prosecutions: 27 Mar 2000

Where a motorist challenges the accuracy of the intoximeter, there is only an evidential burden on him.
Unreported, 27 March 2000
Road Traffic Act 1988 5
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoO’Sullivan v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 4-Nov-1998
The court considered and gave directions for the form of statement of case submitted by the magistrates. . .

Cited by:
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 . .
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 . .
CitedSmith v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 30-Jan-2007
The defendant appealed his conviction for driving with excess alcohol, arguing that the prosecution had failed to provide the roadside breath test figures.
Held: The appeal failed, and was indeed hopeless. Pill LJ said: ‘The specimens of . .
CitedSmith v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 30-Jan-2007
The defendant appealed his conviction for driving with excess alcohol, arguing that the prosecution had failed to provide the roadside breath test figures.
Held: The appeal failed, and was indeed hopeless. Pill LJ said: ‘The specimens of . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 May 2021; Ref: scu.187205