Decani – an adjournment that should never have been granted was challenged due to the apparent unfairness of the decision and reasoning given by the court. The High Court agreed with us and our client was acquitted as a result.
“Further, it appears to me somewhat unfair to suggest that the issues raised on behalf of this claimant, “[…] were very closely analogous to Hassani”. This claimant was not raising every conceivable point in order to frustrate the administration of justice. The points which were raised on the PET, and which I have set out above, were within a relatively narrow compass and in relation to Police Sergeant Varotsis arose from the claimant raising his statutory right under s.16(4) of the 1988 Act to have a certificate proved. Points in relation to the accuracy of the breath testing machine were supported by the expert evidence of Dr Mundy, based on the claimant’s account. Whilst Mr McGuinness is entitled to point out that there was a lengthy list of further potentially technical issues in relation to the operation of the Intoximeter machine providing a false reading, those are only raised in the context of the preliminary points or the points which lay the ground for those contentions, namely the contentions raised in respect of the amount that the claimant had had to drink and whether that could properly give rise to the Intoximeter reading, an avenue of defence specifically adverted to by Irwin LJ in para.15 of the decision of Hassani. In short, there was no suggestion on any side before the justices that this was a claimant who was playing games. He was pursuing a legitimate defence, supported by evidence. He was making a positive case, not needlessly putting the prosecution to proof.