R. v. Burchell

[1994] B.C.J. No. 2440



After drinkning for 4 hours the accused drove away and was stopped...there was a large odour of alcohol coming from the accuseds car and he administered a roadside test which registereda fail...a demand was then made and the accused blew 190...he told teh officer that he had 4-5 beers that day...the accused objected to the admissibility of the certificate of analysis of the grounds that the roadside test was unreliable and that the alcohol standard was not identified by a lot number...an expert also questioned the validity of the certificate of analysis becasue the lot number of the standard alcohol solution in it is not discosed...Mr Fromme went so far to say that without the lot number the rest of the certificae, following the identification of the Analex standard alcohol solution "falls"



The expert did not say that the absence of a single sympton must lead to the conclusion that the breathalyzer readings were unreliable, but in any event before those readings can be called into question the accused must satisfy the court that at elast one hose symptoms was absent. He has failed to do so.