References: [1996] CLR 343
Ratio: 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 was working properly before evidence of the test of the blood specimen was admissible.
Statutes: Road Traffic Act 1988 5 8(2)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Branagan v The Director of Public Prosecutions ([2000] RTR 235)
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 – Wright v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn (Bailii, [2005] EWHC 1211 (Admin))
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 . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 07 February 2020
Ref: 228429 br>
The post Prince v The Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 1996 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.