The appellant appealed a conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg/100 ml.
She argued that statements made to police were compelled under accident reporting requirements and could not form grounds for an approved screening device demand, and that expert “straddle” evidence regarding blood alcohol concentration should have raised a reasonable doubt.
The appeal court held that the trial judge’s adverse credibility findings against the appellant were entitled to deference and were not affected by palpable and overriding error.
As a result, the foundation for the appellant’s expert evidence and statutory compulsion arguments failed.
The conviction was therefore upheld.
