Baldwin v West Yorkshire Police, orse Baldwin v Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 3 Jul 1995

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 [1993] R.T.R. 58 are not a statute. As I have endeavoured to set out, they are words to guide the lower courts in the interpretation of the statute and how this branch of the law should be approached.
In my judgment, so long as the option given by the statute is explained fairly and properly so that the driver can make an informed decision, the requirements of justice and the efficacy of the driver’s option given by the statute under section 8(2) are ensured. Of course, it is right, as Turner v. Director of Public Prosecutions (Note-1994) [1996] R.T.R. 274, 278L-279A requires, that the explanation of the matters that the driver has to be told in order to exercise his proper right should be detailed.
However, on the facts of this case, in my judgment, this particular defendant did make an informed decision and was given all the necessary explanations and information that he would need to make a proper and informed decision.’


Curtis J


Ind Summary 03-Jul-1995, [1996] RTR 238


Road Traffic Act 1988 8(2)

Road Traffic, Police

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78105