||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 377 (Oct)
||Nigel Ley (instructed by Byrne, Frodsham & Co, Widnes) for the appellant.
||John Caudle (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service, Chester) for the prosecution.
||25 October 2002
Criminal evidence and procedure - Evidence - Admissibility - Intoximeter printout used to establish reliability of machine - Admissibility of printout - s 16(1).
A printout from an intoximeter machine was admissible as evidence to establish that the machine had given an unreliable indication and that the police officer in charge of the investigation had reasonable cause so to believe notwithstanding that it had not been served by the times specified in s16(3) of the . If an intoximeter did provide an unreliable indication, the officer was not entitled to require a suspect to provide further specimens of breath, but was entitled to require a specimen of blood or urine. Furthermore, a police officer was entitled to rely on the answer given when a suspect was specifically asked whether there were any medical reasons for not giving a specimen of blood, notwithstanding that the suspect had earlier told a different officer that he was taking medication.
- 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