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 analysis procedure, but stressed that the appellant was under no obligation to do so. The appellant declined. He was then required to provide a specimen of blood. One of the issues on the appeal was whether the officer was entitled to require a specimen of blood in those circumstances. It was argued on the appellant’s behalf that if the officer believed that the breath test device would provide a reliable reading if used again he should have required a second set of specimens of breath rather than requiring a specimen of blood.
Held: That argument was rejected . The officer was lawfully entitled to invite the appellant to give further specimens of breath, as he did, but he could not require the appellant to do so. The effect of section 7(3), however, was that he was entitled, in the circumstances, to require a specimen of blood or urine, and by section 7(4) (which I have not read) it was for the officer to choose whether it should be blood rather than urine.
Judges:
McCombe J
Citations:
(2002} 167 JP 50, [2002] EWHC 2317 Admin
Statutes:
Road Traffic Act 1988 7(7) 11(3)(b)
Cited by:
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – 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.
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: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.184552
