How JustAnswer Works:

  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.

Ask Alice H Your Own Question

Alice H
Alice H, Solicitor/Partner
Category: Law
Satisfied Customers: 2849
Experience:  Partner in national law firm
30932268
Type Your Law Question Here...
Alice H is online now

Drink Drive Case Law precedent Have you case law on Whites

Resolved Question:

Drink Drive Case Law precedent

Have you case law on Whites verses DPP and Davies V DPP . This has be quoted in respect a defence in my drink drive court case , but I do not know the readings or where to get info on the web. The case law relates to me enduring pain in breath test and the Police officer being told of a medical lung condition , but insisted that I would be liable to prosecution if I fail to supply breath test. Breath test was give causing pain , challenging base on this and not being offered blood test. Can you supply 1) mentioned case law and 2) Advise if this is a legal defence as the breath test was given , with a 62 reading. Is it a right to be offered a blood test or is this at the discreation of the officer? I suffered pain and distress and was not aware of the mentioned case laws and if this is could be applied to my situation?
Submitted: 3 years ago.
Category: Law
Expert:  Alice H replied 3 years ago.
My name isXXXXX and I'm happy to help with your question today.

It will take me a few minutes to log on to my law database and search the cases for you.

Please bear with me.
Expert:  Alice H replied 3 years ago.
Good evening

The case of White v DPP (1996) was only reported in the Times. I have looked at Bailii and Lexiis Library but cannot find the judgment - if this is essential to your defence I can have a look in Wilkinsons Road Traffic Law book on Tuesday when I return to my office.

In respect of Davies v DPP I have found the judgment and will arrange to send it to you shortly either by attaching to my response or by e-mail. Either way you will have it within the next one hour.
Expert:  Alice H replied 3 years ago.
I am unable to attach the case of Davies v DPP but I have cut and paste the information below:


QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISIONAL COURT

Published 7 July, 1989Before Lord Justice Neill and Mr Justice PillJudgment June 29, 1989

A reason which did not go to a driver's medical ability to provide a specimen of breath was capable of amounting to a medical reason within section 8(3)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1972, as substituted in Schedule 8 to the Transport Act 1981.

The Queen's Bench Divisional Court so held in a reserved judgment in dismissing an appeal by way of case stated by the defendant, Gordon Edward Davies, against his conviction by Aldershot Justices on January 11, 1989, of failing without reasonable cause to provided a specimen of urine contrary to section 8(7) of the 1972 Act, as substituted.

Section 8, as substituted, provides:

“(3) A requirement under this section to provide a specimen of blood or urine can only be made at a police station ... unless (a) the constable making the requirement has reasonable cause to believe that for medical reasons a specimen of breath cannot be provided or should not be required...”



Mr Philip Kolvin for the defendant; Mr Roger Shawcross for the prosecution.

LORD JUSTICE NEILL

said the issue in the case was whether the police officer was entitled to require the defendant to provide a specimen of urine.

The defendant was seen driving erratically and was stopped by police officers. He was required to provide a specimen of breath which proved to be positive and the defendant was arrested and taken to Aldershot police station.

A police sergeant required the defendant to supply two specimens of breath for analysis by means of an approved device.

The defendant refused to supply them as he was taking a drug called Priadel which a psychiatrist had told him would influence the alcoholic content of his bloodstream.

The police sergeant accepted that explanation and required the defendant to supply a sample of blood for a laboratory test.

The defendant refused to supply such a sample as the duty solicitor to whom the defendant had spoken earlier had told him to tell the sergeant that he suffered from haemophiliac tendencies as could be evidenced by a small cut received earlier which was still bleeding.

That explanation was also accepted by the sergeant who then required the defendant to provide two specimens of urine within one hour of the request.

The defendant was asked if there was any medical reason why he could not supply urine. He replied that while there was no such medical reason he was currently taking large doses of various vitamins which would influence the analysis and as such would not provide the urine samples.

As a result he was charged with failing to supply specimens of urine.

The questions for the opinion of the High Court were:

  1. (a) Could a reasonable bench, properly directed, have found that a reasoable cause to believe that for medical reasons a specimen of breath could not be provided, or should not be required, existed where the defendant claimed to be taking medication which would affect either the analysis of his breath by the Lion Intoximeter 3000, or of the alcohol in his blood?

  2. (b) Could a reasonable bench, properly directed, have found that there was reasonable cause to believe that for medical reasons a specimen of breath could not be provided, or should not be required?

  3. (c) Did the police sergeant make a valid requirement for the defendant to provide a specimen of urine pursuant to section 8(3)(a)?

The primary submission put forward on behalf of the defendant was that “medical reasons” in section 8(3)(a) were confined to reasons which related to the capacity of the driver to supply a specimen of breath.

In the alternative it was submitted that section 8 provided a detailed code relating to the provision of specimens for analysis and that threfore an explanation which was insufficient as a reasonable excuse for the purposes of section 8(7) was incapable of constituting a medical reason why a specimen of breath could not be provided or should not be required.

So far as the second submission was concerned, there was a clear distinction between the evidence which was relevant to the question of reasonable excuse under section 8(7) and the evidence which was relevant to the question raised by section 8(3)(a). The provisions in the two subsections were not in any sense mirror images.

When dealing with the primary submission, it was important to bear in mind the purpose of the elaborate provisions of section 8 which were designed to provide a mechanism whereby evidence could be obtained to support a prosecution while at the same time ensuring that sufficient safeguards were introduced to protect the position of the potential defendant.

In a case such as the present, where the investigation had been carried out at a police station a constable could not require a specimen of blood or urine for the purpose of providing evidence unless one or more of the conditions set out in section 8(3) had been satisfied.

His Lordship saw great force in the argument that the reason put forward by the defendant that he was taking Priadel was incapable of leading to the reasonable belief that a specimen of breath could not be provided.

But even if it was right that the words “cannot be provided” in section 8(3)(a) related exclusively to physical or mental capacity to provide a specimen, no similar restriction could be placed on the words “should not be required”.

The authorities established that the court was not concerned with the actual belief of the police officer but with whether a police officer with that state of knowledge had reasonable cause to hold a certain belief.

In the present case, the question for consideration was whether the facts known to the police sergeant when he asked the defendant whether there was any medical reason why he could not supply urine, he had reasonable cause to believe that for medical reasons a specimen of breath should not be required.

In his Lordship's view the sergeant did have reasonable cause to have that belief and thus the officer was entitled to proceed to ask for a specimen of blood and then a specimen of urine. The appeal would be dismissed.

Mr Justice Pill agreed.

Solicitors: Heald Nickinson, Camberley; CPS, Eastleigh.

Alice H, Solicitor/Partner
Category: Law
Satisfied Customers: 2849
Experience: Partner in national law firm
Alice H and 2 other Law Specialists are ready to help you
Expert:  Alice H replied 3 years ago.
I noticed that you left a 'poor service' rating. This may have been a mistake in which case please do review the rating. In respect of the other issues you raised I will do some research and come back to you as promised.

What Customers are Saying:

 
 
 
  • Thank you so much for your help. Your answers were really useful and came back so quickly. Great! Maggie
< Previous | Next >
  • Thank you so much for your help. Your answers were really useful and came back so quickly. Great! Maggie
  • A quick response, a succinct and helpful answer in simple English. I believe I can now confront the counter party with confidence -- worth the 30 bucks! Rick
  • Wonderful service, prompt, efficient, and accurate. Couldn't have asked for more. I cannot thank you enough for your help. Mary C.
  • This expert is wonderful. They truly know what they are talking about, and they actually care about you. They really helped put my nerves at ease. Thank you so much!!!! Alex
  • Thank you for all your help. It is nice to know that this service is here for people like myself, who need answers fast and are not sure who to consult. GP
  • I couldn't be more satisfied! This is the site I will always come to when I need a second opinion. Justin
  • Just let me say that this encounter has been entirely professional and most helpful. I liked that I could ask additional questions and get answered in a very short turn around. Esther
 
 
 

Meet The Experts:

 
 
 
  • Jo C.

    Jo C.

    Barrister

    Satisfied Customers:

    30316
    Over 5 years in practice
< Previous | Next >
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/EM/emus/2015-7-7_192327_bigstockportraitofconfidentfemale.64x64.jpg Jo C.'s Avatar

    Jo C.

    Barrister

    Satisfied Customers:

    30316
    Over 5 years in practice
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/BE/benjones/2015-12-1_0437_ennew.64x64.jpg Ben Jones's Avatar

    Ben Jones

    UK Lawyer

    Satisfied Customers:

    11553
    Qualified Solicitor - Please start your question with 'For Ben Jones'
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/BU/Buachaill/2012-5-25_211156_barrister5.64x64.jpg Buachaill's Avatar

    Buachaill

    Barrister

    Satisfied Customers:

    1754
    Barrister 17 years experience
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/JO/jojobi/2013-3-19_0265_maxlowryphoto.64x64.jpg Max Lowry's Avatar

    Max Lowry

    Advocate

    Satisfied Customers:

    894
    LLB, 10 years post qualification experience
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/UK/UKLawyer/2012-4-12_9849_F2.64x64.jpg UK_Lawyer's Avatar

    UK_Lawyer

    Solicitor

    Satisfied Customers:

    750
    I am a qualified solicitor and an expert in UK law.
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/KA/Kasare/kasare.64x64.jpg Kasare's Avatar

    Kasare

    Solicitor

    Satisfied Customers:

    402
    Solicitor, 10 yrs plus experience in civil litigation, employment and family law
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/OS/osh/2015-7-7_19268_gettyimagesb.64x64.jpg Joshua's Avatar

    Joshua

    Lawyer

    Satisfied Customers:

    8199
    LL.B (Hons), Higher Prof. Dip. Law & Practice