Rose 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.
Waller L, Swift J
[2010] EWHC 462 (Admin), [2010] RTR 25
Bailii
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.
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 . .
CitedDirector 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 March 2021; Ref: scu.402594