The accused provided a sample to a Qualified Technician and was found to have 130 milligrams and 100 milligrams of alcohol in his blood. In the trial, the accused gave evidence, including witness testimony, as to the amount of alcohol he had consumed. The arresting officer admitted at trial that, in the officer�s opinion, the accused did not appear to be �over�. Expert testimony was given and stated that there would be no measurable amount of alcohol in the respondent�s blood.

Evidence to the contrary must be produced by the accused. A general attack on the approved breathalyser machine or the general scheme of the breathalyser legislation is not evidence to the contrary. Evidence to the contrary has to be evidence that tends to establish that the proportion of alcohol in the blood of the accused at the time of the offence was alleged, was not the same as the chemical analysis. The evidence presented by the accused was that the blood alcohol level of the accused was within the permitted limit at the time of the alleged offence. The evidence raised by the accused was found to be of such weight and cogency as to raise a reasonable doubt.

The accused provided a sample to a Qualified Technician and was found to have 130 milligrams and 100 milligrams of alcohol in his blood. In the trial, the accused gave evidence, including witness testimony, as to the amount of alcohol he had consumed. The arresting officer admitted at trial that, in the officer�s opinion, the accused did not appear to be �over�. Expert testimony was given and stated that there would be no measurable amount of alcohol in the respondent�s blood.

The accused provided a sample to a Qualified Technician and was found to have 130 milligrams and 100 milligrams of alcohol in his blood. In the trial, the accused gave evidence, including witness testimony, as to the amount of alcohol he had consumed. The arresting officer admitted at trial that, in the officer�s opinion, the accused did not appear to be �over�. Expert testimony was given and stated that there would be no measurable amount of alcohol in the respondent�s blood.

Evidence to the contrary must be produced by the accused. A general attack on the approved breathalyser machine or the general scheme of the breathalyser legislation is not evidence to the contrary. Evidence to the contrary has to be evidence which tends to establish that the proportion of alcohol in the blood of the accused at the time of the offence was alleged, was not the same as the chemical analysis. The evidence presented by the accused was that the blood alcohol level of the accused was within the permitted limit at the time of the alleged offence. The evidence raised by the accused was found to be of such weight and cognency as to raise a reasonable doubt.