The defendant appealed his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. He complained that the device used to measure his breath at the police station, the EC/IR intoximeter, was not an approved device. The court had refused to accept evidence to support such an assertion.
Held: The magistrates had found that the appellant had been lawfully required to give the specimen of breath. There is no requirement on the prosecution to prove that the device remained of a type approved by the Secretary of State and was not so modified as to cease to be of a type so approved before convicting a driver on evidence provided by the test of a blood specimen provided voluntarily by him under section 8(2).
Judges:
Brooke LJ, Mitting J
Citations:
[2005] EWHC 1211 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
Citing:
Cited – Howard v Hallett QBD 1984
The police adduced in evidence against the defendant the analysis of a specimen of breath which was not the specimen required under the Act.
Held: The evidence of the analysis of the specimen relied on by the police was inadmissible in . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Jackson, Stanley v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 29-Jul-1998
When requesting a drink driver suspect to give a specimen of blood, an officer’s failure to say that the specimen will be taken by a doctor was not fatal to the prosecution. The issue of whether the blood sample was to be taken had properly been . .
Cited – Fox v Chief Constable of Gwent HL 1986
The driver left an accident. The police entered his home unlawfully, and on his refusal to supply a breath test, he was arrested and charged with faiing to supply.
Held: A lawful arrest is not an essential requirement before a breath test, and . .
Cited – Prince v The Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 1996
The appellant had convicted of an offence under s5 on the basis of evidence provided by a laboratory test of a blood sample provided under section 8(2). In each case it was contended that the prosecution were required to prove that the intoximeter . .
Cited – Branagan v The Director of Public Prosecutions 2000
The defendant appealed against his conviction of driving with excess alcohol, on the basis of a blood sample. He said that it was a requirement that the intoximeter should be shown to be working properly before the evidence of the blood sample was . .
Cited – Murray v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 4-Feb-1993
The defendant claimed that a breathalyser procedure mistake vitiated the subsequent prosecution.
Held: It was essential that the motorist who was asked to provide a sample of breath be first warned that a failure to provide a specimen would . .
Cited – Thompson v Thynne 1996
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Road Traffic
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227058
