July 2019
« Jul    

Russell v Devine (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal Northern Ireland); HL 8 May 2003

References: [2003] UKHL 24, [2003] NI 224, [2003] 1 WLR 1187, [2003] 2 Cr App R 26
Links: House of Lords, Bailii
Coram: Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hutton, Lord Millett
The House was asked whether a specimen of blood required under the regulations, having been requested at a hospital or health centre had to be taken there.
Held: The health centre was not a hospital within the regulations. However the request had already been made at a police station, which request had not been superseded.
Statutes: Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (SI 1995/2994)
This case cites:

  • Cited – Butler v Easton QBD ([1970] RTR 109)
    The initial formalities of a request for a specimen of blood took place at one police station, but no doctor was available there and the suspect was taken to another police station where a specimen was given. He challenged his conviction on the . .
  • Cited – Milne v M’Donald HCJ ([1971] JC 40)
    The court was asked whether a blood specimen having been requested at one police station, it could be taken at another.
    Held: The requirement to provide a specimen for a laboratory test is something different from the actual providing of the . .
  • Cited – Pascoe v Nicholson HL ([1981] 1 WLR 1061)
    A specimen of blood was required at one police station but provided at another.
    Held: The request was validly made. . .
  • Cited – Fox v Chief Constable of Gwent HL ([1986] 1 AC 281, [1985] 3 All ER 392, [1985] 1 WLR 1126, [1985] RTR 337, [1986] Crim LR 59, (1985) 82 Cr App R 105, (1985) 150 JP 97)
    The driver left an accident. The police entered his home unlawfully, and on his refusal to supply a breath test, he was arrested and charged with faiing to supply.
    Held: A lawful arrest is not an essential requirement before a breath test, and . .
  • Confirmed – Howard v Hallett QBD ([1984] RTR 353)
    The police adduced in evidence against the defendant the analysis of a specimen of breath which was not the specimen required under the Act.
    Held: The evidence of the analysis of the specimen relied on by the police was inadmissible in . .
  • Cited – Attorney General’s Reference (No 3 of 1999) (Lynn) HL (Gazette 15-Feb-01, House of Lords, Times 15-Dec-00, Bailii, [2000] UKHL 63, [2001] 2 WLR 56, [2001] 2 AC 91)
    A DNA sample had been wrongfully retained after the suspect had been acquitted, and the sample had been used in a later investigation to identify him. A subsequent sample had been taken, and the result of that second test had been used as evidence . .
  • Cited – Murray v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD (Times 09-Feb-93, [1993] RTR 209, [1993] Crim LR 968)
    The defendant claimed that a breathalyser procedure mistake vitiated the subsequent prosecution.
    Held: It was essential that the motorist who was asked to provide a sample of breath be first warned that a failure to provide a specimen would . .

Leave a Reply