Olajide, R (On the Application Of) v Stratford Magistrates' Court

Section 16 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 provides an evidential route for proving alcohol levels by documentary certification, but it is not exhaustive. The prosecution may prove the result of an evidential breath test through admissible oral evidence from an officer who witnessed the machine produce the readings. A presumption that the machine operated correctly may support that evidence. In judicial review proceedings, the court may determine only the grounds for which permission was granted. A wider challenge to the factual basis of a conviction cannot be introduced at the substantive hearing.

The claimant sought judicial review of his conviction by Stratford Magistrates’ Court for driving with excess alcohol. Permission was granted on the limited issue whether the prosecution had complied with section 16(3)(a) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 by providing him with the breathalyser printout in the required manner.

The claimant argued that the printout was inadmissible and that the prosecution consequently could not prove the alcohol level. The court also recorded that his real complaint concerned the magistrates’ finding that he had been the driver, but permission had not been granted on that issue.

1. The claim was dismissed. The court was confined to the single ground for which permission to bring the judicial review had been granted. The claimant could not use the hearing to challenge the magistrates’ finding that he had been driving.

2. Section 16 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 is not an exhaustive code governing proof of the proportion of alcohol in a specimen of breath. The documentary procedure under section 16(1)(a), subject to section 16(3), is one available evidential route. The court relied on Brett v DPP [2009] 1 WLR 2530.

3. The evidence of a police constable who had witnessed the claimant provide two samples to an evidential breath analyser was admissible. There was a presumption that the machine operated correctly, and the officer’s evidence of readings of 87 and 90 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath was sufficient by itself to prove that the statutory limit had been exceeded.

4. It was therefore unnecessary to resolve whether the claimant had in fact been handed the machine printout when it was produced. The claimant’s reliance on R (on the application of) Wooldridge v Director of Public Prosecutions [2003] EWHC 1663 (Admin) did not alter the result: that case concerned a different subsection, whereas the present case could be proved by admissible evidence independent of the documentary route.

The claimant initially appealed to the Crown Court against his conviction, but abandoned that appeal. He then commenced judicial review proceedings. Permission was initially refused on the papers, but was granted on renewal on the limited section 16(3)(a) ground.