Some Cases on Drink and Driving
| Date | 01 March 1969 |
| Author | John Griffin |
| Published date | 01 March 1969 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X6904200310 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
INSPECTOR
JOHN
GRIFFIN,
LL.B.
Hertfordshire Constabulary
It
isnow
more than a year since part I
of
the Road Safety
Act
1967
came into force, and in that time a number
of
interesting cases have
been decided. Some
of
the more important ones are summarized below
under appropriate headings. Cases regarding disqualification from
driving have been omitted.
SOME CASES ON
DRINK
AND
DRIVING
Breath
Tests
Scott v. Baker
[1968]
2 All E.R. 993 Divisional Court Q.B.D.
In a charge under s. 1(1) of the 1967 Act, it must be shown
that
the breath testing device used was of the approved type.
It
cannot be
said that because a constable would normally be acting properly, the
device used would be one which had been approved by the Secretary
of State. Such a presumption (omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta)
might suffice if the defence did not take the point but not if the matter
was put in issue.
R. v. Skinner
[1968]
3 All E.R. 124 Court of Appeal (C.D.)
Where in a charge under s. 1(1) it is sought to prove
that
the
breath testing device used had been approved by the Secretary of
State, it is sufficient for such evidence to be given by the person who
approved the deviceon behalfof that Minister.
It
is not a question of
delegation; for constitutionally the official's decision is the Minister's
decision.
R. v. Gwilliam The Times, October 9, 1968 Court of Appeal (C.D.)
Hearsay evidence cannot be given to show that the breath testing
device used had been approved by the Secretary of State. In this
case the prosecution had relied upon a label on the box containing
the device, which described the device as an approved one. By virtue
of the Criminal Evidence Act 1965, certain records kept in the course
of trade or business can be admitted in evidence, but it was held in
this case that neither the label nor the consignment delivery note
were records.
Nor
could it be said that the Home
Office
was carrying
on a trade or business.
Note
By virtue of the Breath Test Device (Approval)
(No.1)
Order,
1968, machinery has now been provided whereby
the,
Minister's
March 1969 123
To continue reading
Request your trial