Evidence
| Pages | 335-434 |
| Author | Pauline M. Callow |
Chapter 7
Evidence
See s 16(1), Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 – evidence of the proportion of
alcohol or a drug in a specimen may be given by producing a printout from the
breath analysis device or a certificate signed by an authorised analyst; s 16(2) –
evidence that a blood specimen was taken with consent may be given by
production of a certificate to that effect, signed by a medical practitioner or
registered health care professional; and s 16(3) – the printout or certificate is
admissible if a copy has been handed to the accused when produced or a copy
served no later than 7 days before the hearing. See also the cases in Chapter 2
under the heading “Certificates”, page 164.
1. THE PRINTOUT
See also the cases under the heading “Oral Evidence”, page 402, on the
admissibility of oral evidence of the contents of the printout.
Gaimster v Marlow
[1984] QB 218, [1984] 2 WLR 16, [1985] 1 All ER 82, [1984] RTR 49, [1984]
Crim LR 176, 8 December 1983, QBD
A test result and certificate produced by a breath analysis device constituted a
statement within s 10(3)(a), Road Traffic Act 1972 and were to be taken together,
not compartmentalised. An officer may give evidence to interpret the record.
A motorist had been charged with driving with excess alcohol, contrary to s 6(1),
Road Traffic Act 1972 as substituted by s 25 and Sch 8, Transport Act 1981. The
magistrates dismissed the charge on the basis that the test record produced by the
Lion Intoximeter was not a “statement within the meaning of s 10(3)(a) of the
Road Traffic Act 1972 as amended”, and was therefore inadmissible as evidence.
Their reasons were, inter alia, that a statement must be understandable by an
ordinary person; the test record in question was not understandable without
explanation; a statement under s 10(3)(a) had to contain all the facts to prove the
entire matter in s 10(3); evidence by the police officer who conducted the test was
inadmissible hearsay.
The prosecutor appealed.
QUESTION(S) FOR THE COURT: Whether it was correct to treat the test record
as inadmissible as evidence in that it was not a statement within s 10(3)(a), Road
336 7. Evidence
Traffic Act 1972; whether it was correct to exclude the evidence of the police
officer who conducted the test to explain or interpret the meaning of the contents
of the document.
HELD: “… It was not clear from the case stated whether the justices had seen the
whole of the document produced by the Intoximeter; they should have done. The
document is not to be compartmentalised into the part containing the test result
(the statement) and the part containing the explanation (the certificate), so that
only the first part is admissible. The one document contains in its second part the
explanation and meaning of the first part … The fact that to some people, or even
to most people, it may not be immediately intelligible without explanation does
not prevent it being a statement.
“… if the officer is shown to be a trained operator of the machine and knows what
the meaning of these signs is, and that is proved by way of evidence, then it seems
to me there is no reason why he should not give evidence.”
The justices were incorrect on both points. Appeal allowed.
Chief Constable of Surrey v Wickens
[1985] RTR 277, 14 November 1984, QBD (DC)
Where the copy printout handed to the motorist had not been signed by the officer,
the copy was nevertheless served.
Magistrates had dismissed a charge, under s 6(1), Road Traffic Act 1972 as
substituted by s 25(3) and Sch 8, Transport Act 1981, of driving with excess
alcohol. The copy of the breath analysis test record and certificate handed to the
motorist had been signed by the motorist but not by the officer conducting the
breath test. The justices concluded that that document was not a “copy” and not
therefore admissible in evidence under s 10(5), Road Traffic Act 1972 as likewise
substituted (printout admissible only if a copy of it has been handed to the accused
when produced, etc). They found the police officer’s own evidence of the
Intoximeter reading unreliable. The prosecutor appealed.
QUESTION(S) FOR THE COURT: (a) Whether the prosecution has failed to
comply with the requirement in s 10(5) to serve a “copy”; (b) whether the
prosecution was prohibited from giving evidence of the proportion of alcohol in
breath by calling oral evidence from a trained operator of the Intoximeter as to
the reading given on the visual display unit, without relying on th e printout.
HELD: “We would answer the first question in the negative … An unsigned copy
is a copy, and that is all that subsection (5) requires. If the legislature had intended
that the copy as well as the original of the document must be signed, it would
have said so.” The second question did not, in the light of that, need to be
answered. Appeal allowed.
The Printout 337
Walton v Rimmer
[1986] RTR 31, 4 February 1985, QBD (DC)
Leaving a copy of the printout on the counter at which the defendant was standing
did not constitute handing it to him.
Magistrates had dismissed a charge, under s 6(1), Road Traffic Act 1972 as
substituted by s 25(3) and Sch 8, Transport Act 1981, of driving with excess
alcohol. Analysis of two breath specimens was positive, but the magistrates found
that the Intoximeter printout could not be relied on in evidence by the prosecutor
because a copy had not been handed to or served on the motorist in accordance
with s 10(5), Road Traffic Act 1972 as substituted. The printout had been
produced in triplicate; the motorist had signed two copies; the third had simply
been left on the counter at the police station. The prosecutor appealed.
QUESTION(S) FOR THE COURT: Whether the printout was admissible in
evidence on behalf of the prosecution as having been “handed to the accused when
the document was produced” if, when the document was produced in triplicate by
the approved device, all three copies thereof, duly certified by a constable, were
placed on a counter at which the defendant was standing, and the contents thereof
having been explained to him he then and there signed at least two of them.
HELD: “… the Act of 1972 should not and cannot be so construed that a defendant
can render the evidence inadmissible by refusing to take a document … which is
handed to him. But it does not follow that if he signs a document it must
previously have been handed to him … What happened in this case was that the
documents were put down on a counter at which [the driver] was standing, and
he was asked to sign them. There is no finding that it was indicated to him in any
way that one of those copies was for him to take away … [The printout] should
be either handed – that is to say, tendered to – the defendant at the time of
production, or served thereafter. In this case … the facts as found … did not show
that the document had been handed to the defendant.”
Appeal dismissed.
R v Tower Bridge Magistrates’ Court ex p DPP
[1988] RTR 193, [1987] Crim LR 693, 13 May 1987, QBD (DC)
Where the defendant had pleaded guilty, the court’s insistence on the production
of the printout was an improper exercise of discretion.
A motorist had been charged with driving with excess alcohol in breath, contrary
to s 6(1)(a), Road Traffic Act 1972 as substituted by s 25 and Sch 8, Transport
Act 1981. He had appeared before the justices unrepresented and pleaded guilty.
After hearing the facts, the justices adjourned the case for 24 hours for the original
breath analysis printout to be put before the court. At the resumed hearing, the
original printout was still not available; the magistrate invited the motorist to
change his plea to not guilty, which he did. The magistrate then invited the
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
