North of the Border
| Date | 01 March 1969 |
| Published date | 01 March 1969 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X6904200309 |
| Author | W. A. Ratcliffe |
| Subject Matter | Article |
w.
A.
RATCLIFFE
Assistant
Chief
Constable
of
Glasgow
DRINKING AND DRIVING
On December 16, 1968, the Secretary of State for Scotland
issued The Breath Test Device (Approval) (Scotland) Order, 1968,
and in this way, it is hoped, settled the question of the "Alcotest"
being properly authorized as an instrument for taking breath tests
under the Road Safety Act 1967. Until recently there was no dispute
about the matter. When the Act first came into operation the
"AJcotest" was approved by a letter signed by an official of the
Scottish Home and Health Department and since that time it has
been used by the police on thousands of occasions.
Whether it was the issue of the order or a study of the legal position
in England that was the cause I cannot say, but there has been a
sudden rush to contest the validity of the S.H.H.D. letter.
On December 19, in ForfarSheriff Court, objection was taken that
the "Alcotest" had not been properly approved by the Secretary of
State because he had
not
signed the letter. This being so it was
maintained that the blood test that followed was
not
admissible as
evidence. Sheriff Substitute Ford sustained the objection and dis-
missed the charge. There was no appeal by the prosecution.
The same matter has been tested more recently in the Sheriff
Courts at Dundee and Glasgow but with different results. In the
Dundee case the police had received an anonymous message giving
the number of a car
and
alleging that the driver was drunk. Police
officers followed the car and were able to overtake and stop it. The
driver was given a breath test that showed positive and the later
blood sample when analysed had
141
mg. of alcohol per 100 mi. of
blood.
It
was argued for the defence that the receipt of an anonymous
message was not sufficient justification for the constables to require
the accused to submit to a breath test and that the device used for
the test had not been authorized legally for
that
purpose.
For
the
prosecution it was maintained that the police officers had been
entitled to ask the driver to take a breath test and that the device
used was properly approved by the Departmental letter signed
by an Assistant Secretary and certified. The Sheriff Substitute G. L.
Cox adjourned the hearing and on the following day, January 7,
1969, gave his decision.
It
was held
that
on receiving the anonymous call that the driver
March 1969 121
To continue reading
Request your trial