Thom v Director of Public Prosecutions: 1993

The defendant was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. No print-out was produced but there was oral evidence from the officers who carried out the procedure that the machine was calibrated properly and working properly and what the readings were.
Held: That evidence was admissible and sufficient both as a matter of principle and by reference to the previous authorities. Owen v Chesters was decided on the failure of the prosecution to bring evidence that the machine was calibrated and working properly.


Glidewell LJ, Curtis J


[1994] RTR 11


England and Wales


ExplainedOwen v Chesters 1985
The court considered the means of proving the reading from a breath test meter: ‘It was clearly the intention of the legislature, in enacting subsection (5), that the defendant should be provided in advance of the hearing with the information . .

Cited by:

CitedSneyd v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 24-Feb-2006
The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. He complained that though the officers suspected him of having consumed alcohol, they asked him whether he had been drinking without cautioning him, and that no print out . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.240392