References:  UKHL 24,  NI 224,  1 WLR 1187,  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 However the request had already been made at a police station, which request had not been superseded.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 ( 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 ( 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 ( 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 ( 1 AC 281,  3 All ER 392,  1 WLR 1126,  RTR 337,  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 ( 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,  UKHL 63,  2 WLR 56,  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,  RTR 209,  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 . .