Melia v Director of Public Prosecution
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE HOOPER,LORD JUSTICE BROWN |
| Judgment Date | 05 June 1998 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1998] EWHC J0605-2 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/1492/98 |
| Date | 05 June 1998 |
[1998] EWHC J0605-2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
(DIVISIONAL COURT)
Royal Courts Of Justice
Strand
London W2A 2LL
Lord Justice Simon Brown
and
Mr Justice Hooper
CO/1492/98
MR N LEY (instructed by Messrs Burton Copeland, DX14362, Manchester) appeared on behalf of the applicant.
MR A WALLACE (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service, Manchester) appeared on behalf of the respondent.
Friday, 5th June 1998
This is an appeal by way of case stated in respect of an adjudication by Justices for the County of Greater Manchester acting in and for the City of Manchester. By that adjudication the appellant was convicted of an offence of driving a motor vehicle after consuming alcohol, the proportion of which in his breath exceeded the prescribed limit. The appellant pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution called a Police Constable Stone. In evidence she confirmed that the Lion Intoximeter operator's sheet and the certificate under section 69 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 were her documents. She said that the intoximeter device had been checked and that there was nothing untoward in the procedure overall. That was evidence which the Justices accepted.
At the end of her evidence she was asked by the prosecution to hand in the documents. The court only asked to be given the intoximeter print-out, which showed that the lower reading of the two samples taken from the appellant was 52 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath.
Although the Magistrates did not look at the section 69 certificate, according to their findings of fact:
"The certificate indicated (sic) to show that the intoximeter device was working properly."
In cross-examination, the officer said the calibration checks to be correct would be "33 to 36" but the reading in this instance was "32 to 37".
At the conclusion of the prosecution's case a submission was made on behalf of the appellant. It was agreed that the appellant was entitled to be acquitted because the section 69 certificate had not been produced in evidence, or formally "handed" to the court, or exhibited, or read out and that therefore the provisions of section 69 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 were not satisfied. That section provides:
"1. In any proceedings a statement in a document produced by a computer shall not be admissible as evidence of any facts stated therein unless it is shown:
a. that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the statement is inaccurate because of improper use of the computer,
b. that at all material times the computer was operating properly …"
By virtue of paragraph 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984:
"In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence in accordance with section 69 above, a certificate—
(a) identifying the document containing the statement describing the manner in which it was produced;
(b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that document as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the document was produced by a computer;
(c) dealing with any of the matters mentioned in subsection (1) of section 69 above; and
(d) purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible position in relation to the operation of the computer shall be evidence of anything stated in it; …"
Following further argument the Justices concluded:
"We were of the opinion that:
(a) We were entitled to conclude that the Certificate had been produced for us.
(b) The Witness for the Respondent had referred to the fact that there had been a check carried out on the Intoximeter Device.
(c) That calibration check was indicative that there was evidence as to the operative capabilities of the Intoximeter Device.
(d) We were aware...
To continue reading
Request your trial