Kohler v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 9 Jul 2010

The driver appealed against her conviction for driving with excess alcohol. She said that she had not been given the protection provided under section 9 against being required to provide a specimen whilst under the care of a doctor at hospital.
Held: ‘section 7 read with section 9 provides that a requirement under section 7 for breath at a hospital is necessarily subject to the additional requirements of section 9 specifically for the protection of hospital patients. Section 9 by definition relates to a person only while they are at hospital as a patient. Therefore section 7, where it deals with a suspect at a police station, cannot sensibly be made subject to the additional requirements of section 9. The interaction is thus to ensure that those who are in hospital have the protections provided by section 9 as part and parcel of the section 7 procedure. It does not, in my view, require a court to be satisfied in addition that, for instance, if a preliminary breath test is sought that it has been sought in compliance with the requirements of section 9.’
Munby LJ, Langstaff J
[2010] EWHC 2886 (Admin)
Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)(a) 9, Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 15(2)
England and Wales
CitedRegina v Sang HL 25-Jul-1979
The defendant appealed against an unsuccessful application to exclude evidence where it was claimed there had been incitement by an agent provocateur.
Held: The appeal failed. There is no defence of entrapment in English law. All evidence . .
CitedFox 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 October 2021; Ref: scu.425951