The 1967 Act introduced the offence of driving with excess alcohol. The power to require a suspect to provide a laboratory blood or urine sample, by which blood alcohol could be tested, was made dependent upon a complex step-by-step procedure. The first step in that procedure was the taking of a preliminary (usually roadside) ‘breath test’. By section 7, a ‘breath test’ was defined as one carried out using a device approved by the Secretary of State.
Held: Such approval was essential to the statutory steps leading to a validly required laboratory sample, and that approval must be proved. The maxim ‘omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta’ cannot be relied upon to prove the existence of facts central to an offence.
Citations:
[1969] 1 QB 659, [1968] 2 All ER 993, [1968] 3 WLR 796
Statutes:
Cited by:
Distinguished – Public Prosecution Service v McKee SC 22-May-2013
Non-approval didn’t devalue fingerprints
The court was asked: ‘what are the statutory consequences if the fingerprints of a defendant have been taken in a police station in Northern Ireland by an electronic device for which the legislation required approval from the Secretary of State, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Evidence
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.519001
