Road Traffic (Breath Analysis) Regulations 1975

The regulations are concise and use a small set of concepts that establish the procedural framework for breath analysis under the Road Traffic Act 1974. Those concepts and their legal roles in the instrument are:

• Application for Act purposes (r 3). The regulations apply whenever a breath sample is provided for analysis “for the purposes of the Act”. This ties all procedural obligations and forms set out in the regulations to the Act’s use of breath sampling and analysis, rather than to a collateral or administrative testing regime. The regulations therefore operate only when the breath sample is taken under the statutory powers in the Road Traffic Act.

• Certificate forms (r 4, Schedule 1). The regulations prescribe mandatory templates for particular certificates that are to be used under specified sections of the Act. Form 1 is a certificate by the Commissioner of Police pursuant to section 72 of the Act, certifying that a named person is competent to operate “all types of breath analysing equipment” (Schedule 1, Form 1). Form 3 is a certificate to be signed by an authorised person (section 65 of the Act) giving particulars of the breath sample, the operation of the apparatus, confirmation that prescribed methods were followed, and the numerical or other analysis result (Schedule 1, Form 3).

• Authorised person and Commissioner roles (Schedule 1, Forms). The regulations presuppose roles defined in the Act: the “authorised person” (a role defined in section 65 of the Act) and the Commissioner of Police (who signs Form 1 under section 72). The regulations specify how those roles should discharge certain documentary duties: the Commissioner uses Form 1 to certify competency; an authorised person uses Form 3 to certify the sample event and the manner of analysis.

• Manner of indication (r 7). For the purposes of certain Act provisions (s 68(7) and (8)), the regulations declare that the manner of indication of the result of an analysis by breath analysing equipment is the printing of a statement by the breath analysing equipment. The regulation therefore converts a machine output into the prescribed form of indication for those sections.

• Device-specific operation (r 5, Schedule 2). The Dräger Alcotest 9510 is singled out. The regulations require that this device be operated in accordance with the step-by-step instructions in Schedule 2 (r 5). The instructions are operational and minimal: power on, confirm “READY TO START”, enter particulars, attach a mouthpiece after the “PLEASE BLOW” prompt, direct the breath provision, and follow the device prompt to repeat or terminate if a sample has not been provided as required (Schedule 2, steps 1-5).

• Technical definition (r 2). The regulations define “equilibrator” as an apparatus composed of a labelled container of liquid, a cap with an atomiser bulb and tubing, and a thermometer (r 2). The equilibrator definition exists in the regulations but is not referenced in the operational steps for the Dräger Alcotest 9510 in Schedule 2. The presence of the definition suggests an intended role for a testing solution apparatus in analysis regimes, but the regulations do not link that defined term to any active procedural requirement in the current text.

• Deleted and amended material. The instrument records deletions and amendments (for example r 6 is deleted and Form 2 and a Third Schedule were deleted; multiple SL and Gazette amendments are recorded in the compilation table). The contemporary operative rules are those present in the text, including the model-specific insertion of Dräger Alcotest 9510 instructions (r 5) and the definition of equilibrator (r 2).

These concepts together form a lightweight regulatory layer: the regulations set documentary and machine-operation obligations and assign responsibility for certification and handing statements to the person tested, while leaving substantive definitions and enforcement mechanisms to the Road Traffic Act 1974 itself.

The regulations create direct documentary and operational obligations for a narrow set of actors involved in statutory breath testing under the Road Traffic Act 1974. The primary affected parties are:

• Authorised persons (police or other persons authorised under s 65 of the Act). Those individuals are required to complete the certificate in Form 3 for the purposes of section 70(2)(bb) and to certify, among other things, that the breath analysing equipment was operated by them “in the prescribed manner and the regulations relating to analysis by breath analysing equipment of the relevant type were complied with” (Schedule 1, Form 3, paras 2-4). Form 3 also requires the authorised person to confirm that the equipment indicated a result in the prescribed manner and that they complied with the requirement to hand a statement to the person tested in accordance with section 68(9) of the Act (Schedule 1, Form 3, paras 5-6).

• The Commissioner of Police. The Commissioner is the person who issues the certificate in Form 1 under section 72 of the Act certifying that an identified person is “competent to operate all types of breath analysing equipment” (Schedule 1, Form 1). The regulations do not set substantive criteria for competency; they only set the form that the certificate must take (r 4(1); Schedule 1, Form 1).

• Persons providing breath samples. The person whose breath is analysed is affected insofar as they must receive, at the conclusion of an analysis, the statement printed by the equipment or a signed statement from the authorised person, as required by section 68(9) and implemented by Form 3 (Schedule 1, Form 3, para 6; r 7). The regulations therefore allocate an evidentiary and informational entitlement to the tested person , the machine-printed statement or signed statement indicating the analysis result.

• Operators of specified breath analysing equipment. The operators who use the Dräger Alcotest 9510 are bound to operate that device according to Schedule 2. Anyone operating or responsible for operation of that model in the course of giving breath samples for the purposes of the Act must follow the stepwise procedure in Schedule 2 (r 5; Schedule 2, steps 1-5). The regulations thus put practical constraints on on‑scene operation for that model , including ensuring the device displays “READY TO START”, entering particulars, attaching a mouthpiece at the correct prompt, and following the repeat-or-terminate option if the device indicates that a sample has not been provided as required.

• Administrators and record-keepers. While the regulations do not set express document-retention periods, they require the production and handing of printed statements and completion of Form 3, which implies record generation that will need to be managed by agencies responsible for enforcement under the Act. The regulations leave retention policies to other instruments or agency practice.

The regulations are not targeted at manufacturers generally, except indirectly in the sense that a particular model is legally constrained in how it must be operated for statutory purposes. They do not on their face impose obligations on private laboratories or external service providers; they operate in the field, at the point of analysis, and assign duties to authorised persons and the Commissioner of Police. There are also implicit affected interests: a person certified by the Commissioner as competent to operate “all types” of breath analysing equipment will receive a formal instrument in Form 1, which will have administrative and evidentiary utility when that person operates breath analysing equipment for the purposes of the Act.

The regulations impose several discrete duties and recognise particular informational rights, as follows. Citations are to the regulation or schedule items that create or reflect the duty or right.

Duties

• Duty to comply with forms for certificates. A certificate for the purposes of section 70(2)(a) must be in the form of Form 1 in Schedule 1; a certificate for the purposes of section 70(2)(bb) must be in the form of Form 3 in Schedule 1 (r 4(1), r 4(3), Schedule 1). This is a prescription of documentary form rather than a substantive duty, but it is legally binding in contexts where the Act invokes those sections.

• Commissioner’s certification. The Commissioner of Police must issue certificates in the Form 1 template when exercising the power under section 72 of the Act to certify competence to operate breath analysing equipment. The regulation prescribes the text of that certificate (Schedule 1, Form 1).

• Authorised person’s certificate after analysis. The authorised person who conducts the breath analysis must complete Form 3, certifying particulars including the identity of the person who provided the sample, the date and time, that the person was an authorised person at the material time, that apparatus was breath analysing equipment within the meaning of section 65, that the equipment was operated in the prescribed manner and relevant regulations complied with, and that a result was indicated in the prescribed manner (Schedule 1, Form 3, paras 1-5). The authorised person must also comply with section 68(9) of the Act by completing, signing, and handing to the person a statement as required by that subsection, or by handing a printed statement generated by the breath analysing equipment (Schedule 1, Form 3, para 6).

• Device-specific operational duty for Dräger Alcotest 9510. If a breath sample is analysed using the Dräger Alcotest 9510, the equipment must be operated in accordance with Schedule 2 (r 5). Schedule 2 sets out an ordered list of steps that must be followed in operation, such as confirming the device is switched on and displays “READY TO START”, entering particulars, attaching a mouthpiece on the “PLEASE BLOW” prompt, instructing the person to blow, and following the repeat-or-terminate prompt (Schedule 2, steps 1-5).

• Duty to indicate result by printing. For the purposes of section 68(7) and (8) of the Act, the manner of indication of the result of an analysis by breath analysing equipment is the printing of a statement by the equipment (r 7). This creates a machine-output obligation as the prescribed mode of indication for those Act subsections.

Rights and entitlements

• Right of the tested person to receive the statement. Form 3 expressly records that the authorised person must have completed the duties under section 68(9) , either by handing a signed statement or handing the printed statement from the equipment to the person tested (Schedule 1, Form 3, para 6). That establishes an entitlement for the person tested to be given the statement at the conclusion of the analysis as required by the Act.

• Administrative recognition of competency. The Commissioner’s Form 1 certificate is an administrative recognition that a named person is competent to operate breath analysing equipment; where that certificate exists it is the prescribed form for the exercise of the Commissioner’s section 72 power (Schedule 1, Form 1). The certificate therefore functions as a recognised administrative credential under the Act.

Documentary and evidentiary implications

• Machine printouts as the prescribed manner of indication. The requirement that equipment indicate results by printed statement (r 7) means that, where applicable sections of the Act are invoked, the machine printout is the legally prescribed kind of indication. Form 3 contemplates either a printed statement from the equipment or a signed statement by the authorised person complying with s 68(9) (Schedule 1, Form 3, para 6).

Matters not stipulated by the regulations

• The regulations do not specify substantive criteria for competency, training curricula, minimum maintenance or calibration intervals, or retention periods for printed statements and certificates. The Commissioner’s decision-making criteria under section 72, the content of sections 65, 68, 70, and 72 of the Act, and any penalties or enforcement consequences remain in the Act or in other instruments; the regulations supply only the forms and specific equipment operation steps. These omissions are material to compliance planning because they require agencies to look to the primary Act or internal administrative rules for those substantive obligations.

In short, the regulations create discrete documentary and machine‑operation duties and confer an entitlement on the person tested to receive the statement at the conclusion of analysis, but they leave broader matters of competency standards, calibration, record retention, and sanctions to the Act or to agency practice.

The regulations themselves do not create express offences, fines, or criminal penalties in the text provided. They function as procedural and evidentiary instruments that tie into the Road Traffic Act 1974; enforcement and penalties for non‑compliance are located in the Act rather than in these regulations. The key enforcement features and practical consequences to note from the instrument are the following:

• No penalties in the regulations. Nowhere in the regulations or schedules is an infringement, pecuniary penalty, or criminal sanction specified for failure to use the prescribed forms, for failing to operate the Dräger Alcotest 9510 in accordance with Schedule 2, or for not printing or handing the statement. The instrument prescribes forms and an operational method but does not itself specify sanctions for non‑compliance.

• Reliance on the Road Traffic Act for enforcement. The regulations repeatedly anchor their prescriptions to sections of the Act (for example sections 68(7), 68(8), 68(9), 70(2)(a), 70(2)(bb), 72 and the “authorised person” definition in section 65). This means that any question of admissibility, evidentiary weight, statutory consequence, or penalty arising from failure to comply with the regulations will be considered in the context of the Act’s provisions. For example, Form 3 is “for the purposes of section 70(2)(bb)” and Form 1 is “for the purposes of section 70(2)(a)” (r 4), and r 7 links the printed statement to s 68(7) and (8). The Act will therefore dictate how breaches of prescribed procedures affect prosecutions and evidentiary presumptions.

• Practical enforcement mechanics embedded in the forms. Even without an express sanction in the regulations, the prescribed forms and the requirement to hand a statement to the person tested are mechanisms that feed into enforcement. Form 3 requires the authorised person to certify that the prescribed manner of operation and the regulations relating to the relevant type of equipment “were complied with” (Schedule 1, Form 3, para 4). A failure to complete Form 3, to hand the printed statement or an alternative signed statement, or to operate the Dräger Alcotest 9510 per Schedule 2 will therefore likely be material at enforcement stages because the forms are the vehicle by which compliance with statutory procedures is proven. The regulations do not themselves quantify the consequence but they create documentary expectations that enforcement agencies and courts will treat as relevant to the statutory scheme under the Act.

• Administrative accountability. The Commissioner of Police has the administrative function of issuing Form 1 certificates pursuant to section 72 (Schedule 1, Form 1). Any internal disciplinary or administrative consequences flowing from misuse or negligent operation of equipment would be managed through police agency frameworks, although those frameworks are not specified in these regulations.

• Device output as record. By prescribing that the indication of result is the printing of a statement by the breath analysing equipment (r 7), the regulation creates a tangible artefact that can be used in enforcement proceedings. The handing of a printed statement or signed statement to the person tested (Schedule 1, Form 3, para 6) is therefore a practical enforcement mechanism , the presence or absence of that document will be relevant to whether statutory processes were followed.

To determine specific criminal or civil consequences for non-compliance, one must consult the Road Traffic Act 1974. The regulations supply forms and device operation steps but leave enforcement, penalties, and the legal effect of non‑compliance to the primary Act and to prosecutorial or administrative practice.

The regulations are expressly designed to operate as subordinate instruments to the Road Traffic Act 1974. Their relationship to the Act and to other possible legal frameworks is limited to what the regulations themselves state:

• Subordination and role under the Road Traffic Act 1974. The regulations are made under the legislative framework established by the Road Traffic Act 1974 and repeatedly refer to specific sections of that Act for which they provide prescribed forms or operational modalities. Examples include: forms for the purposes of section 70(2)(a) and section 70(2)(bb) of the Act (r 4); the printed statement as the manner of indication for the purposes of section 68(7) and (8) (r 7); and references to the authorised person within the meaning of section 65 and the Commissioner’s power under section 72 (Schedule 1, Forms 1 and 3). The regulations therefore operate only to implement or facilitate the statutory power and evidentiary regime in the Act.

• Delegation of procedural detail to regulation. Where the Act requires or envisages certification, indication of results, or specified modes of evidence, these regulations supply the form and device-level operating instructions. They do not change the substantive scope of the Act, and any inconsistency would be resolved under the Act. The instruments are procedural complements rather than standalone substantive norms.

• Technical equipment requirements and standards. The regulations specify model-specific operation for the Dräger Alcotest 9510 (r 5; Schedule 2). They do not themselves refer to standards-setting laws or to mutual recognition of devices governed by other instruments. If other laws or administrative standards (for example calibration standards, testing-solution handling, or occupational health rules) apply to the operation of breath-testing equipment, those obligations would operate in parallel to these regulations. The regulations do not displace other technical or workplace safety obligations.

• Unused defined term. The definition of “equilibrator” (r 2) is present in the regulations but is not referenced elsewhere in the operative text of these regulations. That definition may link to other instruments or previously operative regulatory text, but within the current regulations no procedural step mandates use of an equilibrator. Any statutory or regulatory obligations that do require an equilibrator will be found outside this instrument.

• Interaction with administrative practice and evidence law. The regulations’ focus on printed statements and prescribed forms means they intersect with common administrative practices for record keeping and with the admissibility of evidence in prosecutions under the Road Traffic Act. However, the regulations do not specify how courts should treat the documents; evidentiary treatment is governed by the Act and general evidence law.

• Amendment history and consequential changes. The compilation table records multiple amendments and repeals to parts of the regulations over time, including deletions of other schedules and forms and the insertion of the Dräger Alcotest 9510-specific material by SL 2021/58. Those amendments suggest that the regulations have been updated to conform with technological and administrative change; any interaction with other laws will also reflect the legislative history captured in those amendments.

In short, the regulations are subsidiary to, and operate in aid of, the Road Traffic Act 1974. They prescribe forms and machine-operation steps that interface directly with procedural statutory sections. They do not, on their face, displace other legal obligations such as calibration standards, workplace health and safety duties, or evidentiary rules, and they do not create cross‑jurisdictional rights or obligations beyond the Act’s scope.

The regulations include a compilation table that records their origin and subsequent amendments. The following timeline derives directly from that compilation table and from amendment annotations in the text:

• Original instrument: Road Traffic (Breath Analysis) Regulations 1975, published 29 May 1975 and commencing 1 June 1975. This is the base instrument (Compilation table).

• Subsequent amendments and instruments recorded in the compilation table include untitled regulations published 5 May 1978, and further untitled regulations published 15 February 1980. A reprint authorised 25 June 1981 consolidated early amendments (Compilation table).

• Road Traffic (Breath Analysis) Amendment Regulations 1983 (published 25 February 1983) and Road Traffic (Breath Analysis) Amendment Regulations 1987 (published 24 December 1987) are noted changes (Compilation table). The 1987 amendment in particular inserted or amended forms and provisions now visible in Schedule 1 and in r 7 (see amendment footnotes in the primary text).

• The 1991 Road Traffic Amendment Regulations (Pt. 3) are recorded with a publication date of 9 August 1991 (Compilation table). Further consolidations produced Reprint 2 as at 9 January 2004 (Compilation table).

• Modern amendments include:

  • Road Traffic Legislation Amendment Regulations 2008 (Pt. 3), with publication 14 March 2008 and commencement 15 March 2008 (Compilation table).
  • Road Traffic (Breath Analysis) Amendment Regulations 2014, published 28 January 2014 (Compilation table).
  • Road Traffic (Breath Analysis) Amendment Regulations 2016, published 15 November 2016 (Compilation table).
  • Road Traffic (Breath Analysis) Amendment Regulations 2017, published 1 December 2017 (Compilation table).

• A notable recent consolidation and change occurred under the Road Safety Regulations Amendment and Repeal Regulations 2021 (SL 2021/58), published 21 May 2021 and commencing 1 July 2021 (Compilation table). The main text records multiple insertions and deletions effected by SL 2021/58:

  • Regulation 4 was amended and the forms were updated (r 4 inserted; Schedule 1 heading inserted and forms amended: Form 1, Form 3 inserted; Form 2 deleted) (annotations to r 4 and Schedule 1).
  • Regulation 5 (the Dräger Alcotest 9510 operation requirement) was inserted by SL 2021/58 r 7 (r 5 inserted).
  • Regulation 6 was deleted (annotation: r 6 deleted: SL 2021/58 r 8).
  • Regulation 7 was inserted earlier and later amended by SL 2021/58 r 9 (r 7 inserted and amended).
  • Schedule 2 was inserted by SL 2021/58 r 11 to contain the Dräger Alcotest 9510 operation steps.
  • Other deletions include the removal of Form 2 (SL 2021/58 r 10(2)) and deletion of a Third Schedule (SL 2021/58 r 12).

The amendment history recorded in the compilation table and the embedded amendment notes in the regulations show that the instrument has been updated to reflect administrative changes in forms, to remove obsolete schedules and forms, and to add a device-specific operational requirement for the Dräger Alcotest 9510 in 2021. The instrument as reproduced includes these later amendments, and the present operative text is the product of those changes.

Where the regulations reference sections of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (for example sections 65, 68, 70 and 72), the interaction between the regulatory amendments and any amendments to those Act sections will be consequential. Users should therefore consult the current consolidated Road Traffic Act 1974 for up-to-date cross-references and any legislative changes affecting the substantive powers that underpin these regulations.

The regulations as provided contain no citations of court decisions, no reported judicial consideration, and no litigation narrative. The text itself does not reference any cases, and the compilation notes and schedules contain no litigation history. The instrument therefore does not record any judicial treatment, appellate construction, or statutory interpretation of its provisions within its text.

Where litigation may exist concerning the operation of breath analysing equipment, the admissibility of machine printouts, or the evidentiary weight of certificates issued under these forms, such material would be found in case law interpreting the Road Traffic Act 1974 and its evidentiary sections (for example, sections 68 and 70 as referenced in these regulations). However, those authorities are not contained in this instrument. The regulations themselves provide the procedural and documentary framework but do not include or summarise any judicial rulings.

For anyone assessing how courts treat compliance with these regulations, the appropriate next step is to consult judicial decisions interpreting the relevant sections of the Road Traffic Act 1974 and the evidentiary effect of forms and machine outputs in that statutory context. The regulations supply the forms and device operation requirements that a court would examine as part of assessing compliance, but the regulations do not record any litigation outcomes or precedents.

This short instrument contains a number of operational and evidential features that can produce compliance pitfalls or unintended gaps unless administrators and practitioners read the text closely. The following points are drawn strictly from the regulatory text and its schedules.

• The regulations prescribe form but do not set competency criteria. Form 1 is the Commissioner’s certificate that a named person “is competent to operate all types of breath analysing equipment” (Schedule 1, Form 1). The regulations prescribe the form of that certificate but do not specify the substantive tests, training curricula, or assessment criteria the Commissioner must apply when issuing that certificate. Any dispute over whether a person is in fact competent will therefore turn on the Commissioner’s process under section 72 of the Act and not on the regulations themselves (r 4(1); Schedule 1, Form 1).

• The definition of equilibrator is present but unused. Regulation 2 defines “equilibrator” with components and a label indicating a testing solution prepared by the Chemistry Centre (WA) (r 2). Schedule 2’s Dräger Alcotest 9510 operating steps, however, do not mention the equilibrator. The presence of the definition without a cross-reference in the operative steps means that equipment-specific requirements that might have required an equilibrator are not presently mandated by this instrument for the Dräger model. Practitioners should not assume equilibrator use is required for all analysis events under these regulations because the schedule for the Dräger device does not require it.

• Device-specific instruction is limited in scope. Schedule 2 requires only a small set of actions for the Dräger Alcotest 9510: power on and confirm “READY TO START”, enter particulars as prompted, attach mouthpiece after the “PLEASE BLOW” prompt, direct the person to blow, and follow the repeat-or-terminate prompt if a sample was not provided as required (Schedule 2, steps 1-5). There are no steps in the regulations for calibration checks, use of control or testing solutions, ambient air tests, maintenance, or periodic validation. If such steps are required by policy, by the device manufacturer, or by other legal instruments, they are not mandated here. That gap can be material to evidentiary sufficiency.

• The prescribed mode of indication is the printed statement. Regulation 7 prescribes that indication of the result for the purposes of section 68(7) and (8) is by printing a statement from the equipment. While Form 3 recognises that an authorised person may complete and hand a signed statement in accordance with section 68(9), the regulations make clear that a machine printout is the statutory method of indication for those sections. Failure of the printer or failure to hand the printed statement may therefore produce complications in relying on the equipment’s output for statutory purposes (r 7; Schedule 1, Form 3, para 6).

• Deleted material and rework. Several provisions, forms and schedules have been deleted and replaced over time (for example r 6 deleted, Form 2 deleted, Third Schedule deleted). Practitioners dealing with historical records or older cases should confirm which version of the regulations applied at the time of the analysis. The compilation table identifies reprints and amendment dates which must be checked to determine the applicable version for any particular event.

• The authorised person must certify compliance with “prescribed manner” and “regulations relating to analysis by breath analysing equipment of the relevant type” (Schedule 1, Form 3, para 4). This introduces an evidential test that depends on knowing what regulations are “relating to” the relevant equipment type. For the Dräger Alcotest 9510, the prescribed manner is clearly Schedule 2. For other equipment types the regulations as printed do not include device-specific instructions, so determining the “prescribed manner” for other devices will require checking other instruments or agency policy.

• No document-retention rule in the regulations. The regulations require handing the statement to the tested person and completing Form 3, but they do not state how long records must be kept or how duplicates will be produced if a printed statement is lost. Agencies will need to rely on internal record-keeping protocols or other statutory rules to preserve evidence.

• The regulatory text depends on the Act for definitions and powers. Key terms such as “authorised person” and the meaning and effect of the certificates are defined by reference to the Road Traffic Act 1974 (for example section 65, section 72). Users must consult the Act to understand the full legal effect and any sanctions flowing from non‑compliance with the regulations.

These “gotchas” are not speculative. They are direct consequences of what is present in the text and what the text omits. They should be considered when operationalising breath testing regimes under the Road Traffic Act.

Compliance under these regulations requires following the prescribed documentary forms, ensuring the mode of indication is the printed statement, and operating the Dräger Alcotest 9510 in the precise steps mandated in Schedule 2 when that device is used. The following actions, grounded in the regulations, form a compliance checklist.

1. Confirm statutory basis for the test. Ensure the breath sample is being provided “for the purposes of the Act” as the regulations apply only in that context (r 3). Where a sample is taken outside the powers of the Road Traffic Act 1974, these regulations do not apply.

2. Use the prescribed certificate forms. Where the Act requires a certificate under section 70(2)(a), use Form 1 in Schedule 1 (r 4(1); Schedule 1, Form 1). Where the Act requires a certificate for section 70(2)(bb), use Form 3 in Schedule 1 (r 4(3); Schedule 1, Form 3). Do not substitute other templates for the prescribed forms when those statutory sections are engaged.

3. Commissioner’s Form 1 (administrative). If you are the Commissioner of Police exercising powers under section 72, issue the certificate in the Form 1 format to certify a person’s competence to operate breath analysing equipment (Schedule 1, Form 1). The regulations specify the textual form; the substantive criteria for competency are in the Act or in agency policy.

4. Authorised person’s Form 3 and handing the statement. An authorised person who analyses a breath sample must complete Form 3, including:

   • recording the name of the person who provided the sample and the date and time (Schedule 1, Form 3, para 1);
   • confirming that they were an authorised person at the material time (Schedule 1, Form 3, para 2);
   • certifying the apparatus was breath analysing equipment within the meaning of section 65 (Schedule 1, Form 3, para 3);
   • certifying the equipment was operated “in the prescribed manner” and that the relevant regulations were complied with (Schedule 1, Form 3, para 4);
   • certifying the equipment indicated a result in the prescribed manner (Schedule 1, Form 3, para 5); and
   • complying with section 68(9) by completing, signing, and handing to the person the required statement, or by handing the printed statement generated by the breath analysing equipment (Schedule 1, Form 3, para 6).

5. Ensure the breath analysing equipment prints a statement. For the purposes of section 68(7) and (8) of the Act, the prescribed manner of indication is the equipment printing a statement (r 7). Ensure printers are loaded with sufficient paper and that the printed statement is produced and handed to the person tested, or that the authorised person completes the alternative signed statement in accordance with the Act and Form 3 (Schedule 1, Form 3, para 6).

6. Follow Schedule 2 when using Dräger Alcotest 9510. If the analysis uses the Dräger Alcotest 9510, operate the device exactly as set out in Schedule 2 (r 5). Practically this requires:

   • switching the equipment on, ensuring there is sufficient paper in the printer roll, and confirming the display reads “READY TO START” (Schedule 2, step 1);
   • following display prompts and entering particulars relating to the analysis (Schedule 2, step 2);
   • after “PLEASE BLOW” appears on the display, connecting a mouthpiece to the sampling hose (Schedule 2, step 3);
   • directing the person to provide a breath sample into the equipment (Schedule 2, step 4);
   • if the device displays “DO YOU WANT TO REPEAT THE TEST? YES NO” because a sample was not provided as required, either select YES and repeat the steps or NO to terminate the analysis (Schedule 2, step 5, with substeps 5.1 and 5.2).

7. Retain and manage records in agency practice. The regulations require the handing of the printed statement to the person tested and completion of Form 3. Although the regulations do not set retention periods, agencies should adopt documented record‑keeping policies consistent with prosecutorial needs and archival requirements so that printed statements and completed forms can be produced if required by the Act or in proceedings.

8. Be mindful of equipment functionality. The operation steps presuppose a functioning printer and display. Practical compliance therefore requires regular checks to confirm the device powers on, the display indicates readiness, and paper rolls are stocked before conducting samples (Schedule 2, step 1). If the printer fails, the authorised person must still comply with the Act’s requirements concerning handing a statement to the person tested; Form 3 contemplates a signed statement as an alternative (Schedule 1, Form 3, para 6).

9. Determine the prescribed manner for other devices. If a different model of breath analysing equipment is used, identify the “prescribed manner” that applies to that model. The regulations only specify the Dräger Alcotest 9510 in Schedule 2; for other devices the practitioner must locate any other regulations, manufacturer instructions adopted by regulation, or internal agency directions that set the prescribed method for the device in use (Schedule 1, Form 3, para 4).

10. Cross-check with the Road Traffic Act. Because these regulations function in support of and by reference to the Road Traffic Act 1974, confirm the statutory requirements in sections 65, 68, 70, and 72 (and any other relevant sections) to ensure the forms and operational steps are applied in the correct statutory context and that any additional statutory procedures are followed.

Complying with the regulations therefore involves both strictly following the textually prescribed steps for the Dräger Alcotest 9510 and completing the prescribed forms, and ensuring agency processes cover matters the regulations do not specify such as competency assessment, calibration, maintenance and record retention.