Yes, it is correct that as far as the Road Traffic Acts are concerned the breath test has to be conducted by a Police Officer in uniform. As far as the RTA is concerned that makes sense, as its mostly uniformed officers that deal with vehicles.
As far as the new act is concerned yes the Constable has to be in uniform, the reason appears to be purley that the provosions of testing are an almost direct lift of the Road Traffic Act. I suspect thats because the outers from the RTA have been tried and failed. Apart from that I can't seee any real need for the uniform bit to be written in, its not so nessesary as with motor vehicles. However it is there so thats the way it is.
The request by an employer is not compulsary, there being no legal power to make such a requirement. The REQUIRMENT from a Police officer is compulsary, failier to take a test is an offence in itself.
Astradome, thats all very interesting but S.26 says....
26.—(1) This Chapter applies to transport systems of any of the following kinds—
(a) a railway;
(b) a tramway;
(c) a system which uses another mode of guided transport and is specified for the purposes of this Chapter by an order made by the Secretary of State.
It therefore only applies to railways....
The offences in s.27 can only be investigated by a constable (ie a Breath test requirement) and is much the same as the act under which aviation related employees are now under.
Your point about due dilligence is noted, but has that been tested in a court, ie does telling people they can\'t do it count as \'due dilliegence"?
In any event, there is not an equivilent in relation the the aviation industry.
Last edited by bjcc; 9th October 2004 at 23:29.