House of Lords
| DOI | 10.1177/002201839906300104 |
| Author | David Cowley |
| Published date | 01 February 1999 |
| Date | 01 February 1999 |
| Subject Matter | House of Lords |
House
of
Lords
Reasons for Failure to Provide Blood Specimen
DPPv
Jackson;
Stanley
vDPP [1998] 3 WLR 514
The tangled
network
of authorities relating to
the
statutory
requirement
of a motorist to provide aspecimen of blood led to
the
consideration by
the
House of Lords, as
reported
in [1998] 3 WLR 514, of
two
cases
which
had
been
dealt
with
earlier in
two
separate
sets of
proceedings-DPP
v
Jackson
and
Stanleyv
DPP.
In
the
first,
the
decision of
the
Divisional
Court
was reversed,
while
in
the
second, it
was
upheld.
But, in so deciding,
the
House of Lords
found
it necessary to
'explain'
the
dicta of Lord Bridge in
the
locus classicus, DPPv
Warren
[1993] AC 319.
In
Jackson's
case
the
police officer
asked
the
motorist,
who
was
suspected of driving
after
taking drugs, to provide a
specimen
of
blood
and
warned
him
of
the
consequences
of failure to comply
with
the
request. On his refusal to do so,
the
officer
asked
for his reasons,
adding
that
his
only
acceptable
reason
for refusal
had
to be a medical reason,
which
would
be
judged
by a doctor.
The
motorist's reply was, '1
don't
like needles,
but
I'm
not
giving
anything
anyway'.
He was convicted by
the
justices of a failure to provide a
specimen
without
reasonable
excuse,
contrary
to s 7(6) of
the
Road Traffic Act 1988. The Divisional
Court
held
that
the
motorist's dislike of
needles
was
not
amedical
reason;
but
the
court
allowed
the
appeal
on
the
ground
that
the
police
officer
was
in
error
in informing
the
motorist
that
his
only
right to refuse
was
for a medical
reason
which
would
be
determined
by a doctor.
In Stanley v
DPp,
the
analysis of
the
motorist's
breath
specimen
en-
titled
him
to claim
that
the
option
of
an
alternative
specimen
(of
blood
or
urine)
should
be offered to
him
under
s8(2) of
the
1988 Act. He
was
informed
of
that
right
and
it was
added
that,
if
he
were
required
to give
blood,
he
could
avoid doing so
only
for a medical reason, to be deter-
mined
by a doctor.
When
asked
whether
he
wished
to provide
an
alternative
specimen,
he
replied
that
he
did
not
want
aneedle,
which
reply
was
treated
by
the
officer as a refusal, so
that
no
question
was
asked
whether
he
had
any
(other)
reason
for refusing to provide a
specimen of blood.
The
motorist's conviction
which
followed
(on
the
basis of
the
evidence
provided by
the
breath
test) was
upheld
in
the
Crown
Court
and
in
the
Divisional Court.
When
the
two
cases
came
before
the
House of Lords,
the
prosecutor's
appeal from
the
Divisional Court's reversal of
the
magistrates' decision
was allowed in DPP v
Jackson,
while in Stanley v
DPp,
the
defendant's
appeal from
his
conviction
(which
conviction
had
been
upheld
in
the
Crown
Court
and
the
Divisional Court) was dismissed.
Although, in DPP v
Jackson,
the
officer
had
asked
the
motorist
whether
there
was
any
reason
why
he
should
not
provide a
specimen
of
blood,
he
had
immediately
negatived
the
generality
of
that
question
by
47
To continue reading
Request your trial