The use of the SAPS’\u00a0Dr\u00e4ger breathalyser machine has again come into question after the devices were controversially reintroduced in late 2016.<\/p>\n
This follows an application in the\u00a0Cape Town Regional Court to order the release of additional information relating to the machine used to help an unnamed accused\u00a0prepare for trial and cross-examination, according to a report by the Weekend Argus<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n “In its application, the defence asked for the National Prosecuting Guidelines for evidentiary breath-testing machines, the Dr\u00e4ger Alcotest 9510 ZA operating instructions, certificate clarification of the method used to calibrate the machine, storage and maintenance records and documents relating to the training of the person operating the machine when the accused was tested.”<\/p>\n In 2011, High Court Judge Nathan Erasmus ruled that the results obtained using a Dr\u00e4ger breathalyser (the Dr\u00e4ger Alcotest 7110 Mark III) could not be used as evidence because it had not been properly calibrated and the user manual had not been properly followed.<\/p>\n He subsequently ruled that the device\u00a0could and should be modified to meet court standards. As a result, in\u00a0June 2011, all drunk driving cases where Dr\u00e4ger readings were used as evidence were provisionally withdrawn by the National Prosecuting Authority.<\/p>\n