5 Mar 2014
The Court refused leave because 'taken in accordance with normal medical procedures' refers to the actual extraction of blood, not subsequent storage; the ordinary meaning and context do not extend the requirement to storage methods, the issue lacks sufficient public importance given legislative changes, and a further appeal is not necessary in the interests of justice.
8 May 2013
Leave to appeal was refused because the contested issues were primarily factual and did not raise matters of general or public importance nor a real risk of substantial miscarriage of justice; the Court of Appeal correctly concluded that without s79 notice and without expert evidence the applicant did not discharge the onus to show the s75 certificate was erroneous and the s30 exclusion argument was not properly raised at trial and would not succeed on the facts.
30 Aug 2011
The Court held that whether the blood analysed was the defendant's and taken at the relevant time is a factual question for the prosecution to prove by appropriate evidence; a s75 certificate remains sufficient evidence absent proof to the contrary and counsel's unaccepted questions revealing a witness's ignorance do not amount to proof to the contrary, so the proposed grounds had no arguable prospect of success.
2 Oct 2006
Leave to appeal dismissed because the Court of Appeal correctly applied the proviso: both blood test results were materially above the legal limit so the contention that both results were unreliable was speculative and there was no sufficient prospect of success or public importance to warrant further appeal.