Comment by whycome
6 days ago
Isn’t it a similar case in the USA where intoxication breath test computers are similarly obscured from scrutiny? People have argued that they have a right to “face their accuser” and see the source code only to have that request denied. So, black box.
Breathalyzers aren't typically considered sufficient evidence in of themselves to convict (or exonerate), iirc many PDs have a policy of treating a breathalyzer hit as probable cause more than anything and then either they throw you in the drunk tank if you don't demand a blood test to verify, or, if they want to actually prosecute you, they get a warrant for a blood test.
AIUI breath test only establishes probable cause. If you fail a breath test you are taken for a blood draw.
Breath test results are routinely challenged (sometimes successfully) by demanding records showing that the device has been tested and calibrated according to the required schedule.
In my country (Aotearoa) the breath tests are "strict viability ", so proof
You can demand a blood test, but you have to know. Most people do not know