dpp_hill1991
References: [1991] RTR 35
Coram: Neill LJ
Ratio: The prosecutor appealed against dismissal of a summons alleging that the driver had driven with excess alcohol. The magistrates had concluded that the intoximeter must have been faulty.
Held: The conclusion that the device was unreliable was based on evidence which did not justify it.
Neill LJ said: ‘In this case it seems to us that if the defendant were to be believed, however credible a witness he appeared to be and however well he gave his evidence, it would involve three very surprising consequences: (1) that the intoximeter itself was faulty; (2) that not only was that faulty but the Drager Alert Device was also faulty, and finally that there was some explanation other than drink to account for the evidence of glazed vision which was not only given by the police, but was accepted by the Justices.’
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Spurrier QBD (Gazette 27-Oct-99, Times 12-Aug-99, Bailii, [1999] EWHC Admin 721)
It was not absolutely necessary for a defendant who asserted that a Lion Intoximeter was faulty because of a disparity between the reading and what had been drunk, to bring expert evidence to rebut the statutory presumption that the Intoximeter was . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 23 April 2018
Ref: 276431
The post Director of Public Prosecutions v Hill: 1991 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.