Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2002] All ER (D) 377 (Oct)
Court: Administrative Court

McCombe J

Representation Nigel Ley (instructed by Byrne, Frodsham & Co, Widnes) for the appellant.
  John Caudle (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service, Chester) for the prosecution.
Judgment Dates: 25 October 2002


Criminal evidence and procedure - Evidence - Admissibility - Intoximeter printout used to establish reliability of machine - Admissibility of printout - s 16(1).

The Case

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.

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.