Martiner v Director of Public Prosecutions

For the purposes of Road Traffic Act 1988, the requirement to provide a specimen and the offence of failing without reasonable excuse to provide it apply equally to breath, blood and urine specimens. A person who knows of a medical condition that may prevent provision must make a genuine attempt or explain the condition so that the police can consider an alternative specimen or medical advice. Deliberately making no attempt and withholding a known medical explanation will generally prevent reliance on that condition as a reasonable excuse. The statutory causative link is between the excuse and the failure to provide the specimen at the material time.

The claimant appealed by case stated against his conviction by a district judge for failing without reasonable excuse to provide a blood specimen under section 7(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. He had a needle phobia and Anxious Avoidant Personality Disorder, but knew of the needle phobia and did not tell the custody sergeant before refusing the blood specimen. The district judge found that he had made no attempt to provide it and that there was no causative link between his condition and his failure.

The Administrative Court considered whether the principles developed in breath-specimen cases applied to a deliberate failure to provide a blood specimen where the known medical condition had not been disclosed, and whether the conviction was correct.

1. Appeal dismissed. The answers to the questions in the case stated were respectively no and yes. The conviction was upheld.
2. Section 7(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 applies to the whole of section 7. It therefore covers failures to provide breath, blood and urine specimens.
3. The reasoning in Teape v Godfrey [1986] RTR 213 and DPP v Furby [2000] RTR 181, as confirmed in DPP v Lonsdale [2001] RTR 444, applies beyond breath specimens. Where no attempt is made to provide the requested specimen, and no reasonable excuse is advanced, the statutory defence is unavailable where the defendant knew of the relevant medical condition and deliberately chose not to disclose it.
4. The excuse must have a direct causative relationship with the failure to provide the specimen at the material time. A condition discovered later, or a condition which would have prevented provision had an attempt been made, is insufficient where the defendant made no genuine attempt.
5. The distinction suggested between a blood request and a breath request was artificial. Section 7(4) leaves the choice between blood and urine to the constable and does not require both alternatives to be offered. Disclosure of the medical condition would enable the constable to seek medical advice or require an alternative specimen.
6. The respondent was awarded the costs of the appeal, subject to detailed assessment on the standard basis. Any agreed sum was to be paid within three months.

High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal by case stated against the district judge’s conviction was dismissed. The conviction and resulting orders were upheld, with costs subject to detailed assessment on the standard basis.