The LCJ considered an argument that the officer had not complied with the requirement that a defendant to be requested to provide two specimens within one hour of the request. He said: ‘The reference to two specimens of urine, I think, is explained in this way. It is an accepted medical fact that a specimen of urine may be misleading as to its alcohol content if given after a substantial time with a bladder inactive. Accordingly, a person requested to give a sample of urine might fairly be justified in saying that he would wish to give two after an interval, in order to get rid of the possibility of being tried on the basis of the first and inaccurate specimen. I think that Parliament, trying to make absolutely certain that the subject is given a full and fair opportunity to give his sample of urine, has laid down this requirement of two specimens in section 9(5)(b), but I do not believe that the relevance of a period of one hour goes beyond that.’
Judges:
Lord Widgery LCJ
Citations:
[1975] RTR 273
Statutes:
Cited by:
Cited – Prosser v Dickeson QBD 1982
The motorist who had been arrested and required to provide a laboratory test specimen under what was then section 9, under which it was for him to choose to provide a specimen of either blood or urine. He decided to provide two specimens of urine . .
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: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.470573