Edmond v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 23 Feb 2006

The defendant appealed his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. The readings on the Intoximeter were too wide apart and the officer requested a blood specimen. He complained that he had not been given a fresh warning before this request.
Held: The requests were part of the same transaction. There was no requirement to repeat the warning.


[2006] EWHC 463 (Admin)




Road Traffic Act 1988 591)(a)


England and Wales


CitedMurray v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 4-Feb-1993
The defendant claimed that a breathalyser procedure mistake vitiated the subsequent prosecution.
Held: It was essential that the motorist who was asked to provide a sample of breath be first warned that a failure to provide a specimen would . .
CitedJohn Kimball Stewart v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 2-Jun-2003
The defendant gave two specimens of breath, but they differed so markedly that the officer considered them unreliable. He offered the defendant the choice of a further two attempts or to give a specimen of blood or urine. He was convicted on the . .
CitedJubb v Director of Public Prosecutions 2002
The arrested driver was given a warning under section 7(7) before two specimens of breath were obtained. The officer thought the specimens unreliable being of uneven volume. The officer then gave the appellant the chance to repeat the breath . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Crime

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.239253