The police adduced in evidence against the defendant the analysis of a specimen of breath which was not the specimen required under the Act.
Held: The evidence of the analysis of the specimen relied on by the police was inadmissible in evidence. The Act lays down a procedure for requiring a suspected motorist to provide specimens of breath and for analysing them and presenting them before a court. That policy cannot be disregarded. Section 10(2) refers to specimens taken in accordance with the statutory procedure laid down under section 8 of the Act. There must be read into the section as implicit in it, after the words ‘specimen of breath, blood or urine provided by the accused’, the words ‘pursuant to the provisions of this Act.’ That must include a reference in particular, to the procedure laid down under section 8 of the Act.
Judges:
Robert Goff LJ
Citations:
[1984] RTR 353
Statutes:
Road Traffic Act 1972 8(6) 10(2)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Approved – Fox v Chief Constable of Gwent HL 1986
The driver left an accident. The police entered his home unlawfully, and on his refusal to supply a breath test, he was arrested and charged with faiing to supply.
Held: A lawful arrest is not an essential requirement before a breath test, and . .
Confirmed – Russell v Devine (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal Northern Ireland) HL 8-May-2003
The House was asked whether a specimen of blood required under the regulations, having been requested at a hospital or health centre had to be taken there.
Held: The health centre was not a hospital within the regulations. However the request . .
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 . .
Cited – Hussain v the Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 19-Mar-2008
Appeal by case stated – conviction for failing to provide specimen of breath. Machine at one station had failed on two occasions – defendant taken to second station and re-tested. Whether third test request lawful.
Held: In completing the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Road Traffic
Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.182096