Specimens for laboratory testing
| Pages | 121-181 |
| Author | Pauline M. Callow |
Chapter 2
Specimens for Laboratory Testing
See s 15, Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 – use of specimens in proceedings for
an offence under ss 3A to 5A, Road Traffic Act 1988.
1. TAKING SPECIMENS: BLOOD
See also Jones (Vivian Mary) v DPP, page 631 – where a specimen is taken
at hospital, there is no requirement to explain why a breath specimen cannot
be taken; and DPP v Carless, page 368, where, on the facts, the analysis of
a blood specimen given in connection with the investigation of a possible
abduction was admissible to prove driving with excess alcohol.
Russell v Devine
[2003] UKHL 24, [2003] 1 WLR 1187, [2003] 2 Cr App R 26, 8 M ay 2003, HL
Where a requirement for a blood specimen is made at a police station, the
specimen may be taken by a medical practitioner elsewhere than at a police
station or a hospital (in this case, at a health centre).
A motorist had been arrested on suspicion of driving while unfit through drink,
contrary to art 15(1), Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (SI 1995/2994).
Article 18 of that Order is in substantially the same terms as s 7, Road Traffic Act
1988 (provision of specimens for analysis). At the police station, no officer
trained to operate the evidential breath testing device was available, and the
defendant was required to provide a specimen of blood. He consented. The police
officer conducting the proceedings contacted a doctor. The doctor was the only
doctor on duty at a nearby health centre, so he asked that the defendant be taken
to the health centre for the specimen to be taken. The defendant was duly taken
to the health centre, where the requirement for a specimen of blood was repeated,
and the specimen was taken. Analysis of the specimen revealed excess alcohol.
CERTIFIED QUESTION: Whether it is necessary, if the requirement to provide
a specimen of blood or urine has been duly made under art 18, Road Traffic
(Northern Ireland) Order 1995 at a police station or a hospital, that the specimen
be taken at a police station or a hospital.
HELD: “26. Section 15(4)(a)(ii) [, Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (as amended
by s 57(3), Police Reform Act 2002), the wording of which was identical
122 2. Specimens for Laboratory Testing
to art 18(4), Road Traffic Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (SI 1996
No 1320)] states, in effect, that a specimen of blood may be taken by a doctor at
a place other than a police station or a hospital. In my opinion section 57(3)
was not intended to change the law and to remove a restriction as to where a
doctor could take a specimen of blood … In Northern Ireland the road traffic
legislation is based on, and is virtually identical to, the equivalent English
legislation. Therefore in the light of section 57(3) I consider that the Court of
Appeal were right to hold that after a requirement for a specimen of blood had
been made in the police station, the specimen might be taken elsewhere by a
medical practitioner …
“[On the argument that the requirement had been made not at the police station
or at a hospital, but at a health centre] 27. … the requirement made … in the police
station about 2 a.m. was not superseded by the requirement made … in the health
centre about 2.15 a.m. When the appellant was taken to the health centre I think
it was to give effect to the requirement made in the police station and his consent
given there, and I consider that the specimen was provided in consequence of this
requirement and that the repetition of the requirement within such a short period
of time did not deprive the first requirement of its operative effect.”
The answer to the question was “no”. Appeal dismissed.
Afolayan v CPS
[2012] EWHC 1322 (Admin), 1 May 2012, QBD (Admin)
On the findings in this case, the procedure for taking a blood specimen was
correctly followed, even though the MG DD form had not been fully completed.
A motorist had been charged with driving with excess alcohol in blood, contrary
to s 5(1), Road Traffic Act 1988. The arresting officer gave evidence that he was
present when the blood specimen was taken and that he packaged the specimen,
gave it a unique reference number and placed it in a safe. The desk sergeant gave
evidence that “all normal procedures” were correctly followed. The doctor who
took the specimen did not give evidence. The MG DD/A form had not, however,
been fully completed. It did not record that part of the specimen was offered to
the motorist, sealed in his presence and accepted by him. The motorist did not
agree that the specimens were sealed in his presence, but did accept he had been
given a specimen, which he did not have analysed. The analyst of the specimen
said, in an agreed statement, that she had received the specimen with the unique
reference number allocated by the arresting officer and conducted a routine
analysis. The magistrates were satisfied that the procedure for taking the blood
specimen had been correctly followed and convicted. The motorist appealed.
QUESTION(S) FOR THE COURT: Whether the magistrates could be satisfied
beyond reasonable doubt that the correct medical procedures were followed.
HELD: “21. The simple answer to that question is yes. The police officers could
give evidence, as they did, about the procedure that was followed and that it was
Taking Specimens: Urine 123
followed correctly. The magistrates were entitled to prefer that evidence to such
evidence as may have been given by the appellant to opposite effect. They were
entitled to rely upon the undisputed evidence of the forensic scientist that a
properly sealed and bagged specimen reached her laboratory and was analysed by
her. The appellant had his own opportunity to have the sample, which he admits
was given to him, tested. Had it been and had it cast doubt upon the result
achieved on the sample analysed by the forensic scientist, then there may well
have been a difficult issue for the court to resolve. But on the evidence that they
heard, the magistrates were clearly entitled to reach the conclusion they did.”
Appeal dismissed.
2. TAKING SPECIMENS: URINE
See s 7(5), Road Traffic Act 1988 – a specimen of urine is to be provided
within one hour of the requirement for it and after the provision of a previous
specimen. See also the cases in Chapter 1 under the heading “Urine
Specimens”, page 116; Walters (Julian) v DPP, page 205, in calculating the
one hour allowed for providing urine specimens, seconds need not be taken
into account; and Robertson (Eric) v DPP, page 206, where the officer
delayed allowing the driver to produce the first specimen, and disallowed a
second specimen to be provided after the expiry of the hour.
Ross v Hodges
[1975] RTR 55, 1 November 1974, QBD
Where the container holding the second urine specimen was spilt, whether
deliberately or not, no second specimen was provided.
A motorist had been charged with failing without reasonable excuse to provide a
laboratory specimen contrary to s 9(3), Road Traffic Act 1972. He provided a first
urine specimen, and then filled a jar with urine for the second specimen. The
officer reached to take the jar, but it fell from the motorist’s hand and the contents
were spilt. The driver declined to provide a further specimen. The justices
accepted that, since there was no suggestion that the jar had been deliberately
dropped, the passing of the urine into the jar was sufficient provision, and that,
even if there had been a failure to provide, it was not without reasonable excuse.
They accepted a submission of no case to answer and dismissed the case. The
prosecutor appealed.
QUESTION(S) FOR THE COURT: Whether, on the facts, the justices came to a
correct determination and decision in point of law.
HELD: “In my view the second urine specimen was not provided. I am not
prepared to accept that the mere passing of the urine was a provision for present
purposes unless and until the police officer was given the opportunity of taking
charge of it and did take charge of it. He did not have that opportunity, and it
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
