Wright v Director of Public Prosecutions

Wright v Director of Public Prosecutions

There is no requirement for the prosecution to prove that the breath testing device was of a type approved by the Secretary of State before relying on a blood specimen provided voluntarily by the defendant under section 8(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Evidence challenging the approval status of the device is...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Andrew James Wright; Defendant: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / High Court Appeal From Crown Court
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Driving With Excess Alcohol, Admissibility of Evidence, Approved Breath Testing Devices, Costs Orders
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Driving With Excess Alcohol Admissibility of Evidence Approved Breath Testing Devices Costs Orders

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew James Wright

Claimant

Director of Public Prosecutions

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / High Court Appeal From Crown Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence that the breath testing device was not of a type approved by the Secretary of State is admissible in a section 8(2) Road Traffic Act 1988 case
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution must prove the device was of an approved type before relying on a blood specimen provided under section 8(2)

Ratio Decidendi

There is no requirement for the prosecution to prove that the breath testing device was of a type approved by the Secretary of State before relying on a blood specimen provided voluntarily by the defendant under section 8(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Evidence challenging the approval status of the device is irrelevant in such circumstances.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant to pay respondent's costs of the appeal, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed, with £600 to be paid on account.
  • Order that appellant bears the whole of the costs which would otherwise be borne by the taxpayer under the representation order, subject to assessment.