Smith (Nicholas) v Director of Public Prosecutions: 1989

Medical evidence is not always required for a driver to support a reasonable excuse for failing to provide a specimen of breath. Stocker LJ: ‘It would seem to me that in the vast majority of cases at least it will be necessary to have some medical or other expert evidence to say that the observations made of nervousness are, in the context of the defendant concerned, at least a possible explanation for the failure to provide the breath specimen. In the absence of such evidence it will be rare indeed, if indeed it could ever exist, that a condition of nervousness would be sufficient to explain a failure to be able to provide the breath test.’

Judges:

Stocker LJ

Citations:

[1992] RTR 413

Cited by:

CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Brodzky 1997
The court was asked as to what would amount to a reasonable excuse for a driver failing to provide a specimen of breath when so requested: ‘The first point to make is that, although the first question has been put in the form of whether the justices . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Grundy Admn 3-May-2006
The prosecution appealed by way of case stated from the acquittal of the defendant for failing to provide a specimen of breath. She had been distressed on being arrested, and the magistrates concluded that her distress had been the cause of her . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.242536