John 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 second set of breath tests. He appealed, saying he should not have been required to give such further specimens.
Held: The first tests were nugatory, and accordingly the second set were arguably the first. The Act required the officer to offer the choice for a blood test. He had done that, and had not required the second set of breath tests. The conviction stood.
The Hon Mr Justice Goldring The Lord Chief Justice Of England &Amp; Wales
[2003] EWHC 1323 (Admin), Times 07-Jul-2003, [2003] RTR 35
Road Traffic Act 1988 4 5 7(1)(a) 11(3)(b)
England and Wales
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 . .

Cited by:
CitedEdmond 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.
CitedHussain 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 April 2021; Ref: scu.183712