O’Sullivan v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 25 Feb 2005

After routine procedures were followed at the police station, the police took a specimen of breath over two hours after those used for analysis to see if the defendant was then fit to leave. It showed a reading consistent with the analysis of the earlier sample. Several weeks after the arrest the machine had been tested and shown to be unreliable. Held The sample was properly allowed in as evidence of consistency.
Maurice Kay LJ, Newman J
[2005] EWHC 564 (Admin)
Bailii
Road Traffic Act 1988 5
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedZafar v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 1-Nov-2004
The defendant appealed his conviction for failing a breath test. He said that since the meter could be affected by mouth alcohol, the prosecutor had a duty to show that the reading arose from a breath taken deep from the lung by a deep breath.
Cited by:
CitedWoolfe v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 23-Jun-2006
The defendant appealed his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. He claimed to have a medical condition under which the contents of his stomach would regurgitate into his mouth, and that this could exaggerate the alcohol reading.
Held: . .
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: 11 April 2021; Ref: scu.224841