The motorist defendant had been required to provide a laboratory test specimen, under section 9(1). He filled one-third of a two-pint container at 2:15 am. A constable disposed of that pursuant to section 9(6) and the container was washed out. A police sergeant who had been present throughout informed the defendant to indicate when he was ready to give the second specimen. The defendant adjusted his clothing; he sat down; he then indicated to the police constable that he was ready to give the second specimen, and provided it at 2:16 am – only a minute after the first. That specimen was taken for analysis. It showed that the proportion of alcohol in his urine exceeded the prescribed limit. The magistrates followed Prosser v Dickeson to regard what had happened as the provision of one single sample. The prosecutor appealed.
Held: The appeal succeeded. He had indicated that he was ready to give a second specimen, and having given it albeit only a short time after the first, the only conclusion which could properly be reached on the facts was that two distinct specimens had been given. The procedure was complied with, and the second specimen was a proper basis for the prosecution.
Robert Goff LJ at page 89, he cited from the Court of Appeal decision in R v Radcliffe [1977] RTR 99 with this observation, that that case provided clear authority that it does not matter that the first specimen was of any particular quantity, and that it must follow that, provided two specimens are given, it does not matter whether there is any particular gap in time between the two specimens. All that matters is that the statutory procedure should be carried out.
Judges:
Robert Goff L
Citations:
[1985] RTR 84
Statutes:
Cited by:
Cited – Ryder v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 14-Apr-2011
The defendant appealed by case stated against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol, saying that the collection of a sample of urine had not been in accordance with the requirements of section 7. He had had the samples taken whilst in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Road Traffic
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.470576