The defendant was arrested for driving a motor vehicle after having consumed alcohol in excess of the prescribed limit contrary to section 5(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Section 5(1) of the Act provides that:'if a person drives ....a motor vehicle on a road....after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in his breath....exceeds the prescribed limit he is guilty of an offence.'

At the police station the defendant gave 2 specimens of breath both of which were over the prescribed limit. Some 2 months earlier the defendant had been given injections for a spinal injury which contained alcohol that may have affected the breathalyser reading. The defendant had drunk wine on the evening of his arrest but the evidence did not show that to be the reason why he was over the limit.

1.What was the legal issue that the court was deciding? Which particular word in s5 was the court concerned with?

2.Find examples of principles of statutory interpretation that were used by Schiemann J and Balcombe J in their respective judgments (such as use of the literal rule or mischief rule etc).

3.How are these principles of statutory interpretation translated into arguments either in favour of a guilty verdict or in favour of an acquittal? To help you with this look for the arguments made by the prosecution (who are trying to secure a guilty verdict) or the defence (who are trying to obtain an acquittal).