When requesting a drink driver suspect to give a specimen of blood, an officer’s failure to say that the specimen will be taken by a doctor was not fatal to the prosecution. The issue of whether the blood sample was to be taken had properly been described by the officer as a decision for the doctor to make. ‘But what is necessary is that the driver should be aware (whether or not he is told by the police officer) of the role of the doctor so that he does not suffer prejudice. Therefore, if the driver appreciates that a specimen of blood will be taken by a doctor and not by a police officer, the charge should not be dismissed by the justices because the police officer failed to tell the driver that the specimen would be taken by a doctor.’ and ‘the driver should be told of the role of the doctor at the outset before he has to make the decision to give blood. If the driver is not told at the outset of the role of the doctor it will be for the justices to decide whether that omission prejudiced the driver and deprived him of the opportunity to make an informed decision’. The omission of the warning required by section 7(7) ‘in a section 7(3) case’ should lead to an acquittal.
Judges:
Lord Hutton
Citations:
Gazette 03-Sep-1998, Times 30-Jul-1998, [1998] UKHL 31, [1999] 1 AC 406, [1998] 3 All ER 769, [1998] 3 WLR 514
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Warren HL 9-Dec-1992
It was a Police Constable’s responsibility to decide whether a blood or urine specimen was to be taken. He needn’t offer the urine option: ‘it is clear that under section 8(2) the driver, in order that he may decide whether or not to claim that the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Orchard Admn 17-Oct-2000
The prosecution appealed a finding of no case to answer against a defendant accused of driving with excess alcohol. On being offered a choice of blood or urine test, he had asked ‘What is the quickest way out of here’ which the officer recorded as . .
Cited – Wright v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 25-May-2005
The defendant appealed his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. He complained that the device used to measure his breath at the police station, the EC/IR intoximeter, was not an approved device. The court had refused to accept evidence to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Road Traffic
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.158962