The court was asked as to what would amount to a reasonable excuse for a driver failing to provide a specimen of breath when so requested: ‘The first point to make is that, although the first question has been put in the form of whether the justices were entitled to find that the defendant had a reasonable excuse for failing to provide the specimen of breath lawfully required, strictly, the burden is on the prosecution if the matter is raised by sufficient evidence to disprove the reasonable excuse which is put forward by the defendant.
The reasonable excuse which was put forward by the defendant was essentially that by reason of his physical or mental condition he was unable to provide the specimen. That argument was based upon the well-known guidance given by Lawton LJ in R v Lennard
The position has been reached in which the tests that have to be applied by the justices have, in my view, been correctly identified by Curtis J in Director of Public Prosecutions v Crofton [1994] RTR 279. . . The justices in the present case needed, therefore, first, to look for evidence of physical or mental incapacity to provide the specimen. The only such evidence was the evidence of the defendant in cross-examination, that he did not know why he could not provide a sample, save for the mental anguish which was caused to him due to the sergeant threatening him. There was no medical evidence to support such a claim. There is no doubt that medical evidence will not be necessary in every case. . . .
Stocker LJ accepts [in Smith v DPP] that there may be cases where medical evidence will not be necessary, but points out that in the generality of cases it will be necessary. Perhaps the most important reason for the need for such evidence is to enable the justices to answer the third question, which is: whether there is a proper causative link established between the physical or mental condition alleged and the failure to provide a specimen.
In my judgment, the material which was before the justices was wholly insufficient to justify the conclusion that they reached, that there was such a causative link. The defendant was said to be, on his own admission, a relatively fit man with no current medical problems. There was no doubt that he was perfectly able to understand all the instructions that he was given. The state of anguish which is described is not described in terms which enables, or would enable, a bench of justices, properly directing their minds to that evidence, to conclude that there was a causal connection between the anguish and his failure to provide a specimen.’
Judges:
Latham J
Citations:
[1997] RTR 425
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Lennard CACD 1973
The defendant faced with an allegation of failng to provide a specimen of breath, argued that the consumption of alcohol since he had been driving could amount to a reasonable excuse.
Held: The court considered what would amount to a . .
Cited – Smith (Nicholas) v Director of Public Prosecutions 1989
Medical evidence is not always required for a driver to support a reasonable excuse for failing to provide a specimen of breath. Stocker LJ: ‘It would seem to me that in the vast majority of cases at least it will be necessary to have some medical . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Crofton 1994
The court identified three elements to be taken into account to see whether a defendant’s failure to provide a specimen of breath when required to do was reasonable: ‘(i) the need for evidence of physical or mental incapacity to provide the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Grundy Admn 3-May-2006
The prosecution appealed by way of case stated from the acquittal of the defendant for failing to provide a specimen of breath. She had been distressed on being arrested, and the magistrates concluded that her distress had been the cause of her . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Road Traffic
Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.242534
