The prosecution appealed a finding of no case to answer against a defendant accused of driving with excess alcohol. On being offered a choice of blood or urine test, he had asked ‘What is the quickest way out of here’ which the officer recorded as declining to accept the offer. The magistrates had relied upon … Continue reading Director of Public Prosecutions v Orchard: Admn 17 Oct 2000
No right to legal advice before choice of blood/urine specimen after breath test. Citations: Times 24-Mar-1997 Statutes: Road Traffic Act 1988 8(2) Road Traffic Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80052
The choice given to a person detained on suspicion of driving with excess alcohol, of giving either a blood or a urine sample was given satisfactorily, if it was done properly and fairly. Curtis J: ‘I would observe that the words of Lord Bridge in Director of Public Prosecutions v. Warren  R.T.R. 58 are … Continue reading Baldwin v West Yorkshire Police, orse Baldwin v Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 3 Jul 1995
When requesting a drink driver suspect to give a specimen of blood, an officer’s failure to say that the specimen will be taken by a doctor was not fatal to the prosecution. The issue of whether the blood sample was to be taken had properly been described by the officer as a decision for the … Continue reading Director of Public Prosecutions v Jackson, Stanley v Director of Public Prosecutions: HL 29 Jul 1998
Choice between blood and urine sample did not need explanation of doctor’s role. Citations: Times 13-Mar-1997,  EWHC Admin 83 Links: Bailii Statutes: Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1) 7(4) 8(2) Road Traffic Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.137028
It was a Police Constable’s responsibility to decide whether a blood or urine specimen was to be taken. He needn’t offer the urine option: ‘it is clear that under section 8(2) the driver, in order that he may decide whether or not to claim that the breath specimen be replaced, should be fully informed of … Continue reading Director of Public Prosecutions v Warren: HL 9 Dec 1992
The defendant had given a specimen of breath over the minimum, but below 5omg, and accordingly he was to be allowed to give a specimen of blood or urine. The choice was the officers using a wide discretion. That discretion was still to be exercised reasonably. As a rastafarian, the defendant had refused to give … Continue reading Joseph v Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 24 Nov 2003
Restraint on Interference with Burden of Proof The defendant had been convicted for possessing drugs found on him in a bag when he was arrested. He denied knowing of them. He was convicted having failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he had not known of the drugs. The case was heard before … Continue reading Regina v Lambert: HL 5 Jul 2001
The appellant had convicted of an offence under s5 on the basis of evidence provided by a laboratory test of a blood sample provided under section 8(2). In each case it was contended that the prosecution were required to prove that the intoximeter . .
The defendant appealed his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. He complained that the device used to measure his breath at the police station, the EC/IR intoximeter, was not an approved device. The court had refused to accept evidence to . .