Recent Judicial Decisions
| Author | J. C. Wood |
| Published date | 01 January 1969 |
| Date | 01 January 1969 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0032258X6904200118 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
ducted. Though there were many exceptions there was a general
tendency for university speakers to talk above the vocabulary level
of the listeners while the non-university speakers spoke in language
that could be understood.
Who says we need graduates in the police?
PROFESSOR
J.
C.
WOOD,
LL.M.
The University
of
Sheffield
Legal Correspondent
of
THE POLICE JOURNAL
AGAIN
THE
BREATHALYSER
R. v. Brush [1968]3 All E.R. 467 Court of Appeal
This case was an appeal against aconviction under s. Iof the
Road Safety Act 1967. The brief facts were: Brush was stopped
because he was seen to be driving erratically. He was given a breath
test which was positive. He was arrested and taken to a police
station. A second breath test there also proved to be positive.
Thereafter, a sergeant, whose evidence was without corroboration,
said that he asked Brush whether he was willing to give a blood
sample. The sergeant said that he gave Brush a warning under
s. 3(10) which, it will be recalled,
provides-
Aconstable shall on requiring any person under this section to provide a
specimen for a laboratory test warn him that failure to provide a specimen
of blood or urine may make him liable to imprisonment, a fine and
disqualification
...
Two members of Brush's family who had been passengers in his car
and were present at the police station said that they had not heard
the sergeant use the key words "imprisonment", "fine" or "dis-
qualification". Adoctor arrived
and
after some discussion took a
blood sample which was divided into three parts with one
part
given to Brush.
At the trial great attention was given to the question whether a
s. 3(10) warning was given. In the summing up, however, the jury
were told
that
even if the warning had
not
been given the accused
was not entitled to an acquittal by direction of the Judge as a matter
of law.
It
was made clear to the jury
that
this question of the effect
of the failure to warn was a matter for the Judge not for them.
26 January 1969
To continue reading
Request your trial