Addendum
| Author | David Cowley |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201839305700206 |
| Published date | 01 May 1993 |
| Date | 01 May 1993 |
| Subject Matter | Addendum |
House
of
Lords
Lordship had found nothing which caused him to depart from his view as
to the appropriate procedure to be followed under s 7(3) and s 8(2)
considered simply on the basis of statutory language'.
In summary, where the necessity to require a specimen of blood or of
urine under s 7(4) arose for one of the reasons specified in s 7(3), what
was required was no more and no less than the formula used in the instant
case or words to the like effect. In a case where the driver's option was to
be explained to him under s 8(2), the driver should be told that if he
exercised the right to have the replacement specimen taken under s 7(4),
it would be for the officer to decide whether that specimen was to be of
blood or urine.
If
the officer intended to require a specimen of blood to
be taken by a medical practitioner, the driver should be told his only right
to object to giving blood and to give urine instead would be for medical
reasons to be determined by the medical practitioner. In neither case was
there any need to invite the driver to express his preference for giving
blood or urine.
Rob
Jerrard
ADDENDUM
An addendum to be inserted at the end of para. 4of the case note on Rv
Reid [1992] 3 All
ER
673; (1993) 57 JCL 74:
Lord Goff added that Lord Diplock's requirement that the risk must be
obvious must logically relate only to his first category of recklessness.
It
could not be relevant, in his Lordship's opinion, where the defendant was
in fact aware that there was some risk of the relevant kind.
David Cowley
177
To continue reading
Request your trial