The appellant had been stopped, taken to a police station and required to provide two specimens of breath for analysis. After he provided the second, the device indicated that it was not functioning normally, so the officer could not say that he had been provided by the defendant with two specimens of breath which had been analysed reliably, if at all. He was then taken to another police station where he provided two further specimens of breath which revealed that the level of alcohol was in excess of the prescribed limit. He appealed on the ground that he could not be lawfully required to provide two further specimens of breath and should instead have been required to provide a sample of blood or urine.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. Since the material words in section 8(1)(a) were ‘to provide two specimens of breath for analysis’, there was no such provision of specimens unless the result of the motorist blowing properly into the device, and it working properly so as to receive and analyse the specimens and record the result, was the provision of two valid breath specimens. Accordingly, the officer was entitled to require the provision of two further specimens and was not limited to the alternative course of requiring the provision of blood or urine specimens.
Citations:
[1990] RTR 417
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Hussain v the Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 19-Mar-2008
Appeal by case stated – conviction for failing to provide specimen of breath. Machine at one station had failed on two occasions – defendant taken to second station and re-tested. Whether third test request lawful.
Held: In completing the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Road Traffic
Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.267732