Hrysikos v Mansfield

In the case of Hrysikos v Mansfield, the defendant appealed against his conviction for driving with a prohibited alcohol concentration. The dispute centred on whether the defendant refused to comply with a requirement under the Road Safety Act 1986 to remain at a designated location for a second breath test after the initial test failed to produce a result. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the defendant's brief departure from the "booze bus" to smoke a cigarette constituted a refusal to comply with the requirement to remain at that location, and if the reasonableness of the request to remain was relevant to this determination.

The court examined the statutory provisions under s.49(1)(e) and s.55(1) of the Road Safety Act 1986, focusing on the interpretation of the phrase "refusal to comply with a requirement to remain" at the designated location. The court considered whether the defendant's actions constituted a refusal and whether the reasonableness of the police officer's request to remain at the location was a factor to be considered. Additionally, the court addressed an issue regarding the admissibility of a witness statement under s.36 of the Evidence Act 1958, specifically whether the document was tendered for the sole purpose of refreshing the witness's memory during cross-examination.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the defendant's departure from the van to smoke a cigarette did not amount to a refusal to comply with the requirement to remain at the location for a second breath test. The court found that the defendant remained in close proximity to the van and there was no evidence that he was refusing to take part in the second test. The court also held that the reasonableness of the request to remain was not relevant to determining whether there was a refusal to comply. Consequently, the appeal was upheld, and the conviction was quashed. As a result, the defendant was acquitted of the charge of driving with a prohibited alcohol concentration.