Ross v S (A33/12) [2012] ZAWCHC 171; 2013 (1) SACR 77 (WCC) (25 September 2012)

Ross v S (A33/12) [2012] ZAWCHC 171; 2013 (1) SACR 77 (WCC) (25 September 2012)

The State failed to properly prove the calibration and accuracy of the measuring instruments used in the blood alcohol analysis, as required by section 212(10) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The certificate presented was inadmissible for this purpose, and no affidavit was produced. The appellant's challenge to the reliability of the blood test was sufficient to put the matter in issue, and the State's explanation for not leading the necessary evidence was inadequate. The requirements for remitting the matter for further evidence were not met, as the omission resulted from a mistaken belief about the sufficiency of the certificate, not from circumstances justifying reopening. Consequently,...

Citation
[2012] ZAWCHC 171
Parties
Appellant: Jamie Ross; Respondent: The State
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 September 2012
Case Number
A33/12
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence From the Magistrate's Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld; conviction and sentence set aside.
Judges
Bozalek, Olivier
Legal Topics
Driving Under Influence, Proof by Certificate, Admissibility of Evidence, Calibration of Instruments
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Driving Under Influence Proof by Certificate Admissibility of Evidence Calibration of Instruments

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jamie Ross

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence From the Magistrate's Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the State properly proved the calibration and accuracy of the measuring instruments used in the blood alcohol test.
  2. 2 Whether the requirements of section 212(10) of the Criminal Procedure Act were satisfied by the certificate presented.
  3. 3 Whether the State should be permitted to lead further evidence on appeal to cure the evidentiary defect.

Ratio Decidendi

The State failed to properly prove the calibration and accuracy of the measuring instruments used in the blood alcohol analysis, as required by section 212(10) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The certificate presented was inadmissible for this purpose, and no affidavit was produced. The appellant's challenge to the reliability of the blood test was sufficient to put the matter in issue, and the State's explanation for not leading the necessary evidence was inadequate. The requirements for remitting the matter for further evidence were not met, as the omission resulted from a mistaken belief about the sufficiency of the certificate, not from circumstances justifying reopening. Consequently,...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; conviction and sentence set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The conviction and sentence are set aside.