By Alric Lindsay
In the Summary Court on January 14, 2025, attorney Clyde Allen highlighted to the Chief Magistrate that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions breached a Summary Court order given to the DPP in 2024 to produce a copy of the manufacturer’s manual used by the police for the intoxilyzer machine which measures the amount of alcohol in a person’s breath, especially when the police suspect that a person was driving under the influence.
Mr Allen’s emphasis on the DPP’s Summary Court order breach in his client’s case comes soon after the Chief Magistrate drew special attention to the DPP’s breach of a Summary Court order on November 26, 2024, in an unrelated case.
While Mr Allen was not the defence counsel in the unrelated case, mentioning the Chief Magistrate’s comments in that case is noteworthy.
Specifically, the Chief Magistrate found the DPP’s non-compliance with an October 2024 Summary Court order in the unrelated case “of the utmost disrespect.”
She added: “I’m not going to stand for it again,” and put the DPP on notice in November 2024 that, in the New Year, everyone would be held accountable for breaches of Summary Court orders.
Turning to the case of Allen’s client on January 14, 2025, DPP crown counsel stated that if “Mr Allen needs the manual… he will have to go through that company to obtain it.”
In response, the Chief Magistrate reminded DPP crown counsel that the Summary Court’s file endorsements clearly state that crown counsel would do everything they could “to progress the matter” and provide Mr Allen with the manufacturer’s manual for the breath testing machine within ten business days.
In the circumstances, the Chief Magistrate queried why the manual remained unavailable to Mr Allen.
The Chief Magistrate probed further:
Well, what is it that everyone is using then?
The persons who are taking these machines and being trained, what is it are they using?
The Chief Magistrate added:
In fact, it should be available to everyone.
People are being tested on a daily basis with this machine.
But right now, I really don’t understand why the defendant must wait another single day for this to be available.
The Chief Magistrate concluded:
The manual is to be provided within seven days.
Significance of the manufacturer’s manual
While not discussed in detail in the Summary Court on January 14, 2024, it is the view of the author that the manufacturer’s manual for the breath testing machine may be critical in driving under the influence cases for several reasons, including the following:
Establishing Credibility and Reliability: The manufacturer’s manual provides crucial information on the operation, calibration, and maintenance of the breath testing device. If the prosecution does not present this manual, it raises doubts about the machine’s use and the trustworthiness of the results.
Understanding Operating Procedures: The manual details procedures for administering the test, such as device preparation, sample collection, and result interpretation. Without this information, defense attorneys may argue that the breath test wasn’t conducted correctly, potentially leading to inaccurate results.
Maintenance and Calibration Records: The manual includes guidelines for machine maintenance and calibration. Without it, verifying proper maintenance and calibration per the manufacturer’s specifications is challenging, potentially raising questions about the accuracy of breath test results.
Legal Standards and Compliance: Courts require scientific evidence, including breath test results, to meet legal admissibility standards. The lack of the manufacturer’s manual may indicate that the prosecution failed to meet these standards, questioning the evidence’s validity.
Challenge to the Test Results: If the defense argues that no manual indicates testing flaws, it may create reasonable doubt about the defendant’s guilt, potentially leading to dismissal of charges or acquittal.
If the DPP is unable to produce the manufacturer’s manual, concerns may be raised about the validity and reliability of DUI test results.
