QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
B e f o r e :
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR S MILLS (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
28th February 2003
Crown Copyright ©
"We were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on that evidence that a warning of the risk of prosecution was given, and that the appellant was advised that a blood sample was required because the breath testing device was not available. The appellant was told that he would be provided with a sample of blood if he so required."
"1. Could a reasonable bench of justices, properly directing themselves, have held on the evidence that the appellant had been given all the requisite information about providing a specimen of blood?
2. Could a reasonable bench of justices, properly directing themselves, have held on the evidence that the appellant had:
(i) Been made aware
(ii) Understood that he was entitled to be provided with part of his own blood sample if he so wished?"
Neither of those questions has been advanced by Mr Ley on the appellant's behalf in this appeal.
"A constable requesting any person to consent to the making of, or to provide a specimen of blood or urine for analysis, shall offer to supply him in a suitable container part of the specimen, or in the case of a specimen of blood, which it is not practicable to divide, another specimen which he may consent to have taken."
"Where the accused, at the time a specimen of blood or urine was taken from or provided by him, asked to be supplied with such a specimen, evidence of the proportion of alcohol or any drug found in the specimen shall not be admissible on behalf of the prosecution unless --
(a) the specimen is either one of two taken or provided on the same occasion or is part of a single specimen which was divided into two parts at the time it was taken or provided; and
(b) the other specimen or part was supplied to the accused."
That subsection accordingly provided that the evidence of analysis would not be admissible in evidence in the event of a failure to comply.