Joseph v Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 24 Nov 2003

The defendant had given a specimen of breath over the minimum, but below 5omg, and accordingly he was to be allowed to give a specimen of blood or urine. The choice was the officers using a wide discretion. That discretion was still to be exercised reasonably. As a rastafarian, the defendant had refused to give a blood specimen.
Held: The officer had failed to use his discretion properly when refused the defendant the opportunity to give a urine specimen.


Lord Woolf LCJ, Mackay J


Times 02-Dec-2003, Gazette 15-Jan-2004


Road Traffic Act 1988 7


England and Wales


CitedDirector 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 . .
CitedAssociated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation CA 10-Nov-1947
Administrative Discretion to be Used Reasonably
The applicant challenged the manner of decision making as to the conditions which had been attached to its licence to open the cinema on Sundays. It had not been allowed to admit children under 15 years of age. The statute provided no appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.188610