Jones v Crown Prosecution Service

Under section 15(5) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, the accused must request a specimen at the time the blood or urine specimen is provided. An offer, or conduct treated as acceptance of an offer, does not necessarily amount to such a request. Where a request is made, the other part of a divided specimen is supplied if it is tendered to the accused and made available for collection. Physical delivery is unnecessary where the accused declines to take possession immediately or fails to collect the specimen within a reasonable opportunity.

The claimant was convicted by Macclesfield Justices of driving with excess alcohol in her blood. At the police station, a blood specimen was divided into two samples. She pointed to one sample when asked which she wanted, but did not take possession of it. Both samples were sealed and refrigerated, and she was released without collecting the chosen sample.

The appeal by way of case stated concerned whether her conduct constituted a request for a specimen and whether retaining the sample at the police station satisfied the statutory requirement that the other part be supplied to her.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Justices were wrong to infer that the claimant had requested a specimen. Section 15(5) is engaged only where the accused asks to be provided with a specimen at the time the specimen is provided. The statutory request triggers the obligation to divide the specimen. An offer and apparent acceptance do not, without more, establish the required request.
2. The question of supply was separate. The court adopted the reasoning in Walton v Rimmer [1986] RTR 31, concerning analogous wording, that supply may occur by tendering the item to the accused rather than by compulsory physical transfer.
3. The offer of one of the two samples, together with the claimant’s identification of her chosen sample, amounted to a tender. The sample was available to her in the refrigerator. If she chose not to take it immediately, failed to take it when released, and did not return shortly afterwards to collect it, she could not later contend that it had not been supplied.
4. Question 2 was therefore answered affirmatively. The evidential requirement in section 15(5)(b) was satisfied, and the conviction stood. The claimant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of £1,927.

• Macclesfield Justices: convicted the claimant on 6 January 2003 and concluded that the specimen had been requested and supplied.
• High Court (Administrative Court): on appeal by way of case stated, held that there had been no request, but that the statutory requirement of supply was satisfied, and dismissed the appeal under [2003] EWHC 1729 (Admin).