References: [1985] RTR 49
Coram: Robert Goff LJ
Ratio: 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device used for measuring breath alcohol, should not have been approved or that the Secretary of State should have withdrawn approval in respect of the device should be addressed to the Secretary of State and not to the court. While an approval subsisted it is ‘wholly immaterial to mount a challenge to the general reliability of these approved devices in individual prosecutions brought under the Act’. There is no provision for discovery of documents for a summary trial in a magistrates’ court and section 97(1) should not be used as a disguised attempt to obtain discovery. The summons issued to compel the manufacturer to produce documents relating to the functioning and design of the breath-testing instrument was quashed as a ‘fishing expedition’ and because the documents were not admissible per se because they would need an expert witness to interpret them.
Statutes: Magistrates Courts Act 1980 97(1)
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 . . - Approved – 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 – Director of Public Prosecutions v McKeown and Jones HL (Times 21-Feb-97, House of Lords, Bailii, [1997] UKHL 4, [1997] 1 All ER 737, [1997] 1 WLR 295, [1997] 2 Cr App Rep 155, [1997] Crim LR 522)
A driver was arrested for driving with excess alcohol. At the police station, he was to be tested with the Lion Intoximeter. The officer tested the machine and it calibrated correctly. This was at about a quarter after midnight; the sergeant’s watch . . - Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Wood; Director of Public Prosecutions v McGillicuddy Admn (Bailii, [2006] EWHC 32 (Admin), Times 08-Feb-06)
Each defendant sought disclosure of materials concerning the intoximeter instruments, having been charged with driving with excess alcohol. The defendants said that the meters were inaccurate and that the manufacturers were in effect part of the . . - Cited – Cunliffe, Regina (on the Application of) v West London Magistrates’ Court Admn (Bailii, [2006] EWHC 2081 (Admin))
The claimant was an employee of the company manufacturing alcohol measuring devices. He sought judicial review of decisions by magistrates to require him to attend court to give evidence which would require him to breach obligations of confidence he . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 02 May 2018
Ref: 187056
The post Regina v Skegness Magistrates’ Court ex parte Cardy: 1985 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.