Breath Test Appeal Fails

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32164, 6 December 1969, Page 13

Breath Test Appeal Fails

(N.Z. Pre«» A»an.—CopvriohD LONDON, Dec. 5. Three Appeal Court judges yesterday struck the second blow in two days against drivers who have been trying to defeat the roadside breath test. The judges ruled that drivers cannot escape the test merely by driving fast enough to reach private ground usually their own front drive —before being asked to blow into the police breath-test bag. “It would open up the chances of a new form of cops and robbers chase,” commented Lord Justice Sachs.

Yesterday the court ruled that technical irregularities in applying the breath test did not necessarily mean police could not convict for

driving with excess alcohol in the blood.

Before the Appeal Court yesterday was the case of a salesman, John Edward Jones, aged 37, who was alleged to have sped through winding roads, pursued by the police, before turning into his own driveway. There he was given the breath test, which proved positive, then further tests at a police station. He was later fined and banned from driving for a year. The Appeal Court judges ruled that it was no defence to say Jones had ended his journey and was off the highway. But they quashed his conviction on the technical grounds that his case was not properly put to the jury. Some legal experts say many loopholes still remain in the breath-test laws, but police forces throughout the country welcomed the new judgments. Police feel they can now go

ahead with their annual breath-test blitz without having to stick strictly to the instructions that are issued with the official test device. They have plans for taking men off other duties to watch bars and car parks for the drinkers from office parties. The ruling yesterday calls for the use of common sense by drivers and police, and plugs various loopholes, including two which have brought the breath-test law into derision in recent months. It plugs the “policeman-in-uniform” loophole by laying down that if a policeman is not wearing his hat or helmet it is no legal reason for claiming he is technically not in uniform. It also plugs the “keepdrinking loophole" under which a driver could keep swigging from a hip flask, because police had tb wait 20 minutes after his last drink before giving a test |