Russell (Respondent) v. Devine (AP) (Appellant) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal Northern Ireland) (Northern Ireland).

Under article 18(4) of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, a requirement to provide blood or urine must be made at a police station or hospital. The specimen itself may be taken elsewhere by a medical practitioner. Repetition of a recently made and still-operative requirement at the place of sampling does not supersede the original requirement.

If the statutory procedure governing the acquisition of a road-traffic specimen is breached, evidence of its analysis is inadmissible. Absence of prejudice to the accused does not cure such a breach.

The appellant was arrested on suspicion of driving while unfit through drink. At a police station, a constable required him to provide blood under article 18(1)(b) of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. At a doctor's request, the appellant was taken to a health centre, where the requirement was repeated and blood was taken 15 minutes after the original requirement.

The resident magistrate held that the health centre was a hospital, admitted the analysis certificate and convicted the appellant. The Court of Appeal, in [2001] NICA 37, reported at [2001] NI 385, held that the health centre was not a hospital but that article 18(4) regulated where the requirement must be made, rather than where the specimen must be taken.

The certified question was whether a specimen duly required at a police station or hospital must also be taken at such a place.

1. The appeal was dismissed unanimously. Lord Bingham and Lord Hutton concluded that article 18(4) of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 regulates the place where the requirement must be made. It does not require the specimen to be taken at that place, at another police station or at a hospital. Lord Nicholls and Lord Millett agreed with both speeches. Lord Hoffmann agreed with the reasoning of the Lord Chief Justice below.

2. Per Lord Bingham, article 18(4), read alone, could naturally suggest that the requirement and specimen should occur at the same place. The contrasting language of article 18(2), however, expressly regulates where breath specimens are to be provided, while article 18(4) specifies only where the requirement for blood or urine may be made. Pascoe v Nicholson [1981] 1 WLR 1061 established that the relevant provision did not regulate the place of provision. Its ratio was not confined to movement between two police stations.

3. Per Lord Hutton, the language admitted two interpretations. Section 57(3) of the Police Reform Act 2002 recognised that equivalent English legislation already permitted a doctor to take blood elsewhere. As that later enactment was in pari materia, it was permissible to consider it when construing the earlier ambiguous provision. It supported the Court of Appeal's construction.

4. Per Lord Bingham and Lord Hutton, the valid requirement made at the police station remained operative. Its repetition at the health centre approximately 15 minutes later did not supersede it or deprive it of effect. Lord Bingham left open the possibility that an earlier requirement might become spent through lapse of time or other circumstances.

5. Per Lord Hutton, with Lord Bingham agreeing, the health centre was not a hospital within article 13(2). A premises from which a group of general practitioners practised, without inpatient facilities or specialist staff, did not satisfy the statutory definition.

6. Per Lord Hutton, if article 18(4) had been breached, the analysis would have been inadmissible. Howard v Hallett [1984] RTR 353, approved in Fox v Chief Constable of Gwent [1986] AC 281, governed the special statutory procedure for road-traffic specimens. Absence of prejudice could not cure non-compliance. The general approach in Attorney General's Reference (No 3 of 1999) [2001] 2 AC 91 did not displace that specific rule.

1. House of Lords: In [2003] UKHL 24, unanimously dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Court of Appeal's construction of article 18(4) of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995.
2. Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland: In [2001] NICA 37, reported at [2001] NI 385, held that the health centre was not a hospital. It nevertheless upheld the conviction because article 18(4) did not require the blood to be taken at a police station or hospital.
3. Strabane Magistrates' Court: The resident magistrate held that the health centre was a hospital, admitted the blood-analysis certificate, convicted the appellant, disqualified him from driving for 12 months and imposed an absolute discharge.