Cracknell v. Willis, (1987) 84 N.R. 146 (HL)

• Case Date: November 05, 1987
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1987), 84 N.R. 146 (HL)

Cracknell v. Willis (1987), 84 N.R. 146 (HL)

MLB headnote and full text

Cracknell (appellant) v. Willis

(respondent)

Indexed As: Cracknell v. Willis

House of Lords

Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Brandon of Oakbrook, Lord Griffiths, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton and Lord Goff of Chieveley London, England

November 5, 1987.

Summary:

Cracknell, a motorist, was stopped by the police and he provided a breath sample for analysis. Cracknell was charged and convicted of driving a motor vehicle with an excessive blood alcohol content contrary to the Transport Act 1981 (U.K.). Cracknell appealed, by way of stated case, on the ground that the trial judge wrongly prohibited him from leading evidence to show the amount of alcohol he had consumed in order to show that the breathalyzer machine was defective.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal. Cracknell appealed.

The House of Lords allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction. The House of Lords held that Cracknell was entitled to lead evidence of his consumption of alcohol to show that the breathalyzer machine was defective.

Criminal Law - Topic 1374

Motor vehicles - Breathalyzer - Evidence of results of analysis of breath sample - The House of Lords referred to the presumption that the breathalyzer machine is reliable - see paragraphs 27 and 31.

Criminal Law - Topic 1374

Motor vehicles - Breathalyzer - Evidence of results of analysis of breath sample - Cracknell, a motorist, was stopped by the police and he provided a breath sample for analysis - Cracknell was charged with driving a motor vehicle with an excessive blood alcohol content - The trial judge prohibited Cracknell from leading evidence of his alcohol consumption to show that the breathalyzer machine was defective - The House of Lords held that the trial judge erred and that Cracknell was entitled to lead such evidence to show that the machine was defective.

Cases Noticed:

Hughes v. McConnell, [1985] R.T.R. 244, not folld. [para. 6].

Duddy v. Gallagher, [1985] R.T.R. 401, not folld. [para. 6].

Newton v. Woods, [1987] R.T.R. 41, refd to. [para. 10].

Fox v. Chief Constable of Gwent, [1986] A.C. 281, refd to. [para. 15].

Burridge v. East, [1986] R.T.R. 328, not folld. [para. 16].

Price v. Nicholls, [1986] R.T.R. 155, not folld. [para. 21].

Lucking v. Forbes, [1986] R.T.R. 97, refd to. [para. 23].

Howard v. Hallett, [1984] R.T.R. 353, refd to. [para. 36].

Statutes Noticed:

Transport Act 1981 (U.K.), sect. 8 [para. 10]; sect. 10 [para. 11].

Counsel:

[None disclosed].

This appeal was heard by Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Brandon of Oakbrook, Lord Griffiths, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton and Lord Goff of Chieveley of the House of Lords.

The decision of the House of Lords was delivered on November 5, 1987 and the following opinions were filed:

Lord Keith of Kinkel - see paragraph 1;

Lord Brandon of Oakbrook - see paragraph 2;

Lord Griffiths - see paragraphs 3 to 34;

Lord Oliver of Aylmerton - see paragraph 35;

Lord Goff of Chievely - see paragraphs 36 to 39.