Cst. Cushing observed the appellant's vehicle veering from time to time into the lane for oncoming traffic. When the constable caught up with it the vehicle stopped. The appellant showed signs o impairment and was arrested. Cst made a demand that the appellant provide a samples of his breath. Cst Cushing took teh appellant to a police station and turned him over to cst taylor whom he identified as "the qualified breathalyzer operator". at this time cst cushing, in the presence of the appellant, related to cst taylor the "facts concerning the demand of the sample". Cst taylor returned the appellant to cst cushing and gave him a notice of submission of chemical analysis certificate and Certificate of analysis. Each were photocopied 3 times. the results were 140 mg at 62 minutes after the innitial arrest and 100mg at 82 minutes. In this appeal the admissibility of a certificate of a qualified technicial is objected to on 2 grounds...(1) that there was no evidnece on which the trial judge could find that the qualifed technician formed an opinion that he recieced such samples of the appellants breath as were necessary to enable a proper analysis to be made and (2) that what was tendered and accepted in evidnce was a carbon copy of the certificate of analysis and not the original copy of it.
Clearly the purpose of both s 237(1)(f) and (5) have been met so have their literal requirments. In my view this ground of appeal should fail