The appellant had been convicted of failing to give a breath test, and of driving with excess alcohol. He had falsely claimed that he had had a drink in the five minutes before being asked to take the test, and said the officer should not have requested the breath test.
Held: The conviction was upheld. The expert’s evidence was largely based upon speculation, and the court had been able properly to reject it, and the device was properly accepted.
References: [2003] EWHC 130 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Judges: Clarke LJ, Jack J
Statutes: Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)(a) 6(4), Breath Analysis Devices (No 2) Approval Regulations 1998
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:
- Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Carey HL ([1970] AC 1072)
If a police officer has reason to believe that a driver suspected of driving with excess alcohol has consumed alcohol within the previous 20 minutes, he must wait until 20 minutes has elapsed after the last drink before administering the breath . . - Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Andrew Earle Anthony Brown, Jose Teixeira QBD (Times 03-Dec-01, [2002] RTR 395, CO/3794/2001, CO/3710/2001)
Where a defendant to a charge of driving with excess alcohol, sought to test the accuracy of the Intoximeter, the Magistrates should consider whether the evidence was as to the particular Intoximeter used, and was of sufficient quality to displace . . - Cited – Regina v Skegness Magistrates’ Court ex parte Cardy ([1985] RTR 49)
Representations that the Intoximeter or other device used for measuring breath alcohol, should not have been approved or that the Secretary of State should have withdrawn approval in respect of the device should be addressed to the Secretary of . . - Cited – Grant v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn (Bailii, [2003] EWHC 130 (Admin))
The appellant had been convicted of failing to give a breath test, and of driving with excess alcohol. He had falsely claimed that he had had a drink in the five minutes before being asked to take the test, and said the officer should not have . . - Cited – Brown v Procurator Fiscal, Falkirk HCJ ([2002] ScotHC 25, Bailii)
The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. He complained that the machine used to take his sample of breath did not conform to the necessary type. It had been manufactured by an independent company. Though not . . - Cited – Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions HL ([1935] AC 462, Bailii, [1935] UKHL 1)
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of his wife. She had left him and returned to live with her mother. He went to the house. He said he intended to frighten her that he would kill himself if she did not return. He wired a shotgun to . . - Cited – Young v Flint ([1987] RTR 300)
Alterations to an intoximeter can be so fundamental that they can cause an approved device to lose its approval or at least to lead to the conclusion that the device is no longer an example of the device as approved. . . - Cited – Regina v Harrow Crown Court Ex Parte Dave QBD (Times 20-Oct-93, [1994] 99 Cr App R 114, [1994] 1 WLR 98, [1994] 1 All ER 315)
A Crown Court when sitting as an appellate court must give reasons for its decision. The court reviewed earlier decisions, and concluded that where a court is going to reject expert evidence it must give proper reasons: ‘The appellant was entitled . . - Cited – O’Sullivan v Director of Public Prosecutions (Unreported, 27 March 2000)
Where a motorist challenges the accuracy of the intoximeter, there is only an evidential burden on him. . . - Cited – Regina v Somers ([1963] 3 All ER 808)
An expert is permitted to give second hand information. . . - Cited – English v Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd; etc, (Practice Note) CA (Times 10-May-02, Bailii, Gazette 30-May-02, [2002] EWCA Civ 605, [2002] 1 WLR 2409, [2002] 3 All ER 385, [2003] IRLR 710)
In each case appeals were made, following Flannery, complaining of a lack of reasons given by the judge for his decision.
Held: Human Rights jurisprudence required judges to put parties into a position where they could understand how the . .
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Grant v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn (Bailii, [2003] EWHC 130 (Admin))
The appellant had been convicted of failing to give a breath test, and of driving with excess alcohol. He had falsely claimed that he had had a drink in the five minutes before being asked to take the test, and said the officer should not have . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 28 August 2020; Ref: scu.184940 br>
The post Grant v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 22 Jan 2003 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.