Russell v Devine (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal Northern Ireland): HL 8 May 2003

The House was asked whether a specimen of blood required under the regulations, having been requested at a hospital or health centre had to be taken there.
Held: The health centre was not a hospital within the regulations. However the request had already been made at a police station, which request had not been superseded.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hutton, Lord Millett
[2003] UKHL 24, [2003] NI 224, [2003] 1 WLR 1187, [2003] 2 Cr App R 26
House of Lords, Bailii
Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (SI 1995/2994)
Northern Ireland
Citing:
CitedButler v Easton QBD 1970
The initial formalities of a request for a specimen of blood from a driver took place at one police station, but no doctor was available there and the suspect was taken to another police station where a specimen was given. He challenged his . .
CitedMilne v M’Donald HCJ 1971
The court was asked whether a blood specimen having been requested at one police station, it could be taken at another.
Held: The requirement to provide a specimen for a laboratory test is something different from the actual providing of the . .
CitedPascoe v Nicholson HL 1981
A specimen of blood was required at one police station but provided at another.
Held: The request was validly made. . .
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 . .
ConfirmedHoward v Hallett QBD 1984
The police adduced in evidence against the defendant the analysis of a specimen of breath which was not the specimen required under the Act.
Held: The evidence of the analysis of the specimen relied on by the police was inadmissible in . .
CitedAttorney General’s Reference (No 3 of 1999) (Lynn) HL 15-Dec-2000
A DNA sample had been wrongfully retained after the suspect had been acquitted, and the sample had been used in a later investigation to identify him. A subsequent sample had been taken, and the result of that second test had been used as evidence . .
CitedMurray v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 4-Feb-1993
The defendant claimed that a breathalyser procedure mistake vitiated the subsequent prosecution.
Held: It was essential that the motorist who was asked to provide a sample of breath be first warned that a failure to provide a specimen would . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 January 2021; Ref: scu.181924