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 hospital from a catheter bag. He said there had not been two samples.
Held: The appeal failed.
Langstaff L said: ‘what must be applied, as it seems to me, is the plain English of the statute. If one asks here whether or not two samples — I shall call them samples to distinguish them from the statutory requirement, which is that of a specimen for analysis — were provided, then factually, as it seems to me, there could be no other conclusion to which the Bench could come other than that they were. Urine came within the hour after the request from the motorist. It went to the officer in some suitable container. The motorist knew that it would, and had accepted the procedure. The urine was plainly ‘provided’.’ and
‘if a flow of urine is connected in a chamber and that chamber is emptied, as it was here, into another chamber, the urine which thereafter collects in the first chamber is not the same sample, not the same urine as that which has been drained away. A specimen of that second filling seems to me to constitute a second specimen of urine. In this case, there were in fact three samples, one or two specimens being disregarded before that which was taken for evidential purposes shortly before 6.00 a.m. in the morning. Given that the purpose of the provisions was to ensure that the urine ultimately sent for analysis was a fresh specimen, and properly reflected the bodily condition of the person from whom it was taken, it seems to be entirely consistent with that principle that the statutory words should be interpreted here as the Bench interpreted them, , that there was here more than one specimen.’
Langstaff, Spencer JJ
[2011] EWHC 4003 (Admin)
Bailii
Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)(a) 7, Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 2
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Roney v Matthews QBD 1975
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 . .
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 – Regina v Radcliffe CACD 1977
In the procedure for giving two specimens of urine at a police station to test for driving over the prescribed limit, it does not matter that the first specimen was of any particular quantity. It therefore follows that, provided two specimens are . .
Cited – Regina v Musker 1985
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 . .
Cited – Nugent v Ridley 1987
May LJ considered the need to require two samples of urine under the Road Traffic act. He said that the only construction that he could give to that subsection was to read it precisely as it reads, namely that a specimen was to be provided within . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Road Traffic
Leading Case
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.463084
