Is “radio interference” a defence to an Intoximeter (evidential breath machine) reading?
For anyone looking for Home Office Circular 39/1989 – you won’t find it on a government website and you won’t even find it in the online National Archives – because the online archives only go back to 2003.
Sometimes, “specialist motoring lawyers” (and I use the term advisedly) tell clients they can avoid a drink-drive conviction on a radio interference technicality. “The police can’t prove they turned all their radios off before you blew into the evidential breath machine, so you’re off the hook”, is bamboozle.
Because of this, many people are pouring their hard earned cash down the drain with the hope that they can beat the police’s evidence on radio interference.
Can I use Home Office Circular 39/1989 guidance in my drink drive case?
Given the Home Office Circular 39/1989 guidance has not been repeated, perhaps that’s a big clue that the quality of Intoximeters has improved since 1989.
Prospective clients should also know that the magistrates courts are on to drink drive bamboozle. The court listings office will make sure that a District Judge who is a legal expert will decide your case – and not a bench of lay magistrates.
The police and CPS sometimes do make mistakes – and flawed evidence and processes cannot be trusted.
The key is therefore to find a specialist motoring law barrister who can find those mistakes – and persuade the judge why those mistakes are so bad that the case against you should be thrown out. When this happens, the judge will say that the case is dismissed – and clients walk out of court with their licences and good reputations intact.
So, rather than instructing lawyers who tell you what a wonderful case you have before they’ve read any of the police evidence – and who don’t care if you lose – a direct access expert motoring law barrister can give clear advice about what works and get better results.
Put it this way, if you’re instructing someone who farms out your case to a barrister, they probably never step foot in court themselves – and have no idea / don’t care if their 1989 arguments crash and burn. They’re too busy running silly points to see the real flaws in the police / CPS case where they could actually win.