The Director of Public Prosecutions v Vince & Ors [2016] EWHC 3014 (Admin) (25 November 2016)

The Director of Public Prosecutions v Vince & Ors [2016] EWHC 3014 (Admin) (25 November 2016)

Failure to offer a blood or urine sample after an 'Ambient Fail' message, or to complete MG DD/A form paragraphs A18 and A19, does not render breath test results inadmissible if the statutory requirements of the Road Traffic Act 1988 are otherwise met and the machine is found reliable. Roadside breath test results may be considered as supporting evidence for reliability. In Vince, the magistrates' decision to exclude evidence due to unreliability was not shown to be an error of law given the case stated.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 3014 (Admin)
Parties
Appellant (kang), Respondent (vince): Director of Public Prosecutions; Appellant (kang): Balvinder Singh Kang; Respondent (vince): Celia Vince
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Both appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Breathalyser Procedure, Drink Driving Offences, Procedural Compliance, Case Stated Appeals
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Admissibility of Evidence Breathalyser Procedure Drink Driving Offences Procedural Compliance Case Stated Appeals

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Appellant (kang), Respondent (vince)

Balvinder Singh Kang

Appellant (kang)

Celia Vince

Respondent (vince)

Procedural Posture

Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to offer blood/urine sample after 'Ambient Fail' invalidates breath test result
  2. 2 Whether procedural errors in MG DD/A form render breath test evidence inadmissible
  3. 3 Whether roadside breath test result can support reliability of station procedure

Ratio Decidendi

Failure to offer a blood or urine sample after an 'Ambient Fail' message, or to complete MG DD/A form paragraphs A18 and A19, does not render breath test results inadmissible if the statutory requirements of the Road Traffic Act 1988 are otherwise met and the machine is found reliable. Roadside breath test results may be considered as supporting evidence for reliability. In Vince, the magistrates' decision to exclude evidence due to unreliability was not shown to be an error of law given the case stated.

Court Disposition

Both appeals dismissed