Recent Judicial Decisions
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X6804101005 |
| Date | 01 October 1968 |
| Author | J. C. Wood |
| Published date | 01 October 1968 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
PROFESSOR
J.
C.
WOOD,
LL.M.
The University
of
Sheffield
Legal Correspondent
of
THE POLICE
JOURNAL
BLOOD ALCOHOL
Scott v. Baker [1968] 2 All E.R. 993 Divisional Court
A police officer stopped Baker whose car appeared to be exceeding
the speed limit. He submitted him to a breath test under s. 2(1) of
the Road Safety Act 1967. The test was positive so he was arrested
and taken to the police station. He was there given another breath
test which also was positive. A sample of blood was then taken
and
this showed blood alcohol above the prescribed limit. At his trial
before the magistrates it was submitted
that
the device used for the
breath test had
not
been approved by the Secretary of State in
accordance with s. 7(1) of the Road Safety Act. The magistrates
considered this submission
and
asked the prosecutor whether he
wished an adjournment. This was
not
asked for
but
the magistrates
adjourned to consider their decision. At the resumed hearing the
magistrates were then aware that there was on the court files a
Home Officecircular letter stating
that
the "Alcotest" device, which
had been used in this case, was approved. They asked the parties
whether it was felt they should take account of this letter. The
defendant maintained that it was useless as proof. The information
was dismissed
and
the prosecutor appealed.
Lord Parker, C.J., in his judgment in the Divisional Court began
by reviewing the appropriate section of the Road Safety Act. S. 7(1)
defined a breath test as:
"a
test for the purpose of obtaining an indication of the proportion of alcohol
in a person's blood carried out. by means of a device of a type approved
for the purpose of such a test by the Secretary
of
State. on a specimen of
breath provided by that person."
The circular letter from the Home Office listed the "Alcotest" as
approved
and
said:
"The
notification to chief officers by circular that the Secretary of State has
approved aparticular device for the purpose of the Act should be sufficient
evidence of the approval if this is required for court proceedings."
Lord Parker described this statement as "somewhat naive". The
circular was not admissible as evidence of approval.
The prosecutor argued that it did
not
matter how the blood was
obtained-it
clearly showed an offence against the Act. The
October 1968 465
To continue reading
Request your trial