Breckon v DPP [2007] EWHC 2013 (Admin) (22 August 2007)

Breckon v DPP [2007] EWHC 2013 (Admin) (22 August 2007)

The breathalyser machine used was an approved device as it fell within the description in the Schedule to the Approval Order, and the prosecution was not required to adduce the actual roadside breath test figures because section 15(2) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 does not apply to preliminary breath tests.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 2013 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Clive Martin Breckon; Defendant: DPP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 August 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Divisional Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Type Approval of Breathalyser Devices, Admissibility of Roadside Breath Test Results, Interpretation of Road Traffic Act 1988, Disclosure Obligations in Criminal Proceedings
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Type Approval of Breathalyser Devices Admissibility of Roadside Breath Test Results Interpretation of Road Traffic Act 1988 Disclosure Obligations in Criminal Proceedings

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 2 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clive Martin Breckon

Claimant

DPP

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Divisional Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the breathalyser machine used was an approved device under the relevant statutory scheme
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution was required to adduce the actual roadside breath test figures in evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The breathalyser machine used was an approved device as it fell within the description in the Schedule to the Approval Order, and the prosecution was not required to adduce the actual roadside breath test figures because section 15(2) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 does not apply to preliminary breath tests.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Both questions posed by the District Judge answered in the negative
  • Conviction and sentence upheld