Re-testing of sample justified where discrepancies in quantity and substance description raised doubts about the laboratory report.

Discrepancy in the quantity of sample drawn and the quantity reflected in the laboratory report, together with variation in the description of the recovered substance, justified permitting re-testing of the sample. The earlier precedent was read as recognising that there is no absolute bar to re-testing, not as requiring every request to be allowed. The order directing production of the case property and weighing machine for re-testing was therefore upheld, and the challenge was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order directing production of the case property and weighing machine for re-testing of the sample was liable to be set aside.

Analysis: The discrepancy between the quantity of sample stated to have been drawn and the quantity reflected in the laboratory report, together with the variation in the description of the recovered substance, provided justification for allowing re-testing. The earlier decision relied upon did not lay down that every request for re-testing must be allowed, but only that there is no absolute bar against such a request.

Conclusion: The order permitting re-testing was upheld and the challenge was rejected.

---