||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 64 (Jul)
Rose LJ and Gibbs J
||Richard Whittam (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service, Warrington) for the appellant.
||Nigel Ley (instructed by Byrne Frodsham, Widnes) for the respondent.
||4 July 2002
Road traffic - Breath test - Device - Analysis of breath specimen by approved device - Expert evidence demonstrating machine not meeting one required specification - Defendants challenging reliability of device - Device's failure not relevant case ||Crown Court dismissing informations - Approach to challenge to reliability of intoximeter - Whether justices in error.
It had not been open to the Crown Court to find that the Home Secretary, in approving the intoximeter device EC-IR had been acting unlawfully or irrationally. The point in issue before the court had been the admissibility of the real evidence, namely the intoximeter reading. The reliability of a particular device was always open to challenge by admissible evidence, and in the event of a challenge, the prosecution were obliged to prove the device's reliability. Moreover, looking at the statutory scheme as a whole, including the procedural safeguards relating to the possibility of inaccurate readings due to mouth alcohol, the approval of the device could not be described as irrational.
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary