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 failing to provide the specimen at the police station. They certified a question as to whether it was open to do so without medical evidence.
Held: ‘it is perfectly clear from the case stated that the magistrates were simply not in a position to come to the conclusion that there was any evidence of a causative link between the distress from which they found the defendant to be suffering and her failure to provide a specimen. Since the evidence lacked that essential ingredient, as it seems to me there was insufficient evidence of the defence of reasonable excuse to make it necessary for the Crown to call any evidence to negative it. Stated shortly, the evidence in the case did not justify the conclusion that the defence of reasonable excuse had been raised and that in those circumstances it was not incumbent upon the Crown to call any evidence to disprove it. ‘

Judges:

Forbes J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1157 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedSmith (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 . .
CitedDirector 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 . .
CitedDirector 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.242295