Sneyd v Director of Public Prosecutions

A police officer may require a roadside breath test where the circumstances and the driver's response provide reasonable cause to suspect that alcohol is present in the driver's body. The cautioning and recording requirements in Code C apply when there are grounds to suspect an offence, not merely because a driver has been drinking.

Evidence of an evidential breath-test result and of the machine's reliability may be given orally by the officer who conducted the procedure. A print-out is not essential. Unchallenged evidence that the machine was working correctly may suffice to establish proper calibration. The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted by the Mid-North Essex Justices of driving with excess alcohol, contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The conviction followed a roadside breath test and an evidential Intoximeter procedure, which produced a lower reading of 52 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath.

By way of case stated, the appellant challenged the conviction on three principal grounds: breach of Code C of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984; absence of admissible evidence of the breath-test result without the print-out; and absence of sufficient evidence that the machine was calibrated. A further question concerned the justices' reference to the purpose of drink-drive legislation and public protection.

1. Code C. The requirement under paragraph 10.1 of Code C to administer a caution arises where there are grounds to suspect an offence. The officer's suspicion that the appellant had been drinking did not, without more, amount to grounds to suspect an offence, since drinking is not itself criminal. The appellant's admission that he had consumed three pints gave the officer reasonable cause under section 6(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to require a breath specimen. The cautioning requirements became engaged only after the positive roadside test, when there were grounds to suspect an offence. There was therefore no breach of Code C and no occasion to exercise the discretion under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
2. Admissibility and proof of the result. Section 16 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1998 provides a statutory method of proving the result by print-out and certificate, subject to the conditions in section 16(3). It does not exclude proof by direct oral evidence. The officer's evidence of the readings displayed by the machine was admissible and sufficient to establish that the lower reading was 52 microgrammes.
3. Calibration and reliability. Oral evidence may also establish that the machine was working correctly and reliable. It is unnecessary for the officer to give the actual calibration figures where his evidence sufficiently establishes proper operation. The evidence here was unchallenged and entitled the justices to find that the machine had been properly calibrated. Any issue as to the officer's qualifications was raised too late and, in any event, was a matter for the justices to assess on the evidence.
4. The justices' references to public protection and the purpose of the legislation could not themselves establish admissibility or guilt. Their decision was nevertheless correct on the evidence, and those observations did not taint it. Question (d) need not be answered. The appeal was emphatically dismissed.

• Mid-North Essex Justices: convicted the appellant of driving with excess alcohol on 9 June 2004.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal by way of case stated and answered questions (a) and (b) affirmatively and question (c) negatively.