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 specimen; (ii) that medical evidence would normally be required to support such a claim . . and lastly (iii) to the necessary causative link between the physical or mental conditions and the failure to provide the specimen.’
Judges:
Curtis J
Citations:
[1994] RTR 279
Cited by:
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Brodzky 1997
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 . .
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: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.242535
