References: [1994] RTR 11
Coram: Glidewell LJ, Curtis J
Ratio: 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.
This case cites:
- Explained – Owen v Chesters ([1985] RTR 191)
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 . .
(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Sneyd v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn (Bailii, [2006] EWHC 560 (Admin))
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 . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 20 June 2018
Ref: 240392
The post Thom v Director of Public Prosecutions: 1993 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.
