Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2010] All ER (D) 120 (Jan)
Neutral Citation: [2010] EWHC 52 (Admin)
Court: Queen's Bench Division, Divisional Court
Judge:

Moses LJ and Tomlinson J

Representation Neil Corre (instructed by Punatar & Co) for the appellant.
  Kate Wilkinson (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the respondent.
Judgment Dates: 20 January 2010

Catchwords

Road traffic - Driving with excess alcohol - Provision of specimens - Breath or laboratory alcohol analysis - Statutory option to provide blood/urine specimen - Appellant being arrested for driving with excess alcohol - Breath specimens being given - Appellant electing laboratory alcohol analysis so as not to have breath specimen used against him - Police constable deciding that blood specimen appropriate - Appellant taken to have refused his consent to provision of blood specimen - Justices convicting appellant - Whether obligation to consent where person exercising statutory option - Whether refusal before constable amounting to abandonment of earlier election - Whether justices entitled to convict - ss 5(1)(b), 7, 8.

The Case

Road traffic Driving with excess alcohol. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the instant case stated appeal, gave a ruling clarifying the law in relation to the provision of specimens of breath and blood, as contained under ss7 and 8 of the for the purposes of defending against a charge of driving with excess alcohol (in the breath) contrary to s5(1)(b) of the 1988 Act.

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.