Scheiner v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 13 Jun 2006

Appeal against conviction for driving with excess alcohol – officer having mobile phone with him and turned on contrary to manufacturer’s instructions.
Held: The appeal failed. ‘This appeal should, in my view, mark the end of arguments before Magistrates’ Courts and Crown Courts that, merely because a mobile telephone or police radio was — still less, may have been — present and switched on, so the result of the analysis of the samples of breath produced by the intoximeter EC/IR device should not be admitted and/or should be found unreliable. Evidence is required at least to raise the realistic possibility that the device on the occasion with which the court is concerned may have malfunctioned and produced a false reading. Assertions based merely on an alleged failure to comply with manufacturer’s recommendations do not amount to such evidence. ‘
[2006] EWHC 1516 (Admin)
Road Traffic Act 1988
England and Wales
CitedCracknell v Willis HL 1988
The evidence which is admissible on a challenge to the reliability of an intoximeter device is not limited to direct evidence of the unreliability of the breath testing device, but can be based on evidence such as the level of consumption, and the . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Carey HL 1970
If a police officer has reason to believe that a driver suspected of driving with excess alcohol has consumed alcohol within the previous 20 minutes, he must wait until 20 minutes has elapsed after the last drink before administering the breath . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 March 2021; Ref: scu.242955