Smith v DPP

Smith v DPP

The prosecution is not required to adduce in evidence the result in figures of the roadside breath test. The statutory scheme only requires the results of the police station specimens to be put in evidence. The roadside test is a preliminary indication and not intended as evidential material for conviction under Section 5(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

Parties
Appellant: Stephen John Henry Smith; Respondent: DPP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 January 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (case Stated) / Appeal From Magistrates’ Court to High Court
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Driving Under the Influence, Breathalyser Evidence, Disclosure of Evidence, Statutory Interpretation
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Driving Under the Influence Breathalyser Evidence Disclosure of Evidence Statutory Interpretation

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen John Henry Smith

Appellant

DPP

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (case Stated) / Appeal From Magistrates’ Court to High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution is obliged to adduce in evidence the result in figures of the roadside breath test
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution must disclose the roadside breath test reading in figures to the defence

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution is not required to adduce in evidence the result in figures of the roadside breath test. The statutory scheme only requires the results of the police station specimens to be put in evidence. The roadside test is a preliminary indication and not intended as evidential material for conviction under Section 5(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed