Jones v Director of Public Prosecutions

Where Road Traffic Act 1988, section 7(2) prevents a breath specimen being required at a hospital, the police need not explain that statutory reason to the suspect. Under section 15(5) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, a blood specimen is supplied where it has been offered and placed among the accused’s personal belongings. A court may also reject an untested technical objection to identification evidence where the evidence provides a clear evidential chain. The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted by South East Surrey Justices at Dorking Magistrates’ Court of driving with excess alcohol, contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. She appealed by way of case stated on three questions: whether there was evidence that she had been the driver; whether the police had followed the correct procedure when they did not explain why a breath specimen could not be supplied; and whether she had been supplied with a divided part of her blood specimen.

The central issues concerned the sufficiency of the identification evidence, the effect of section 7(2) in a hospital case, and the meaning of supplying a specimen under section 15(5) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

The appeal was dismissed and all three questions stated by the magistrates were answered in the affirmative.

1. Identification evidence. The magistrates were entitled to interpret PC Sullivan’s statement as indicating that he had himself identified the appellant. The statements of PC Wiles and PC Sullivan provided a clear evidential chain linking her with the vehicle. If identity had genuinely been in issue, the defence should have required cross-examination and objected to the disputed passage. The prosecution nevertheless remained required to prove every material element.
2. Hospital breath specimens. Section 7(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 permits a requirement to provide a breath specimen only at a police station. There was consequently no power to require one at the hospital. The police were not required to explain that statutory reason to the suspect, since the explanation could not affect the statutory procedure and would add only a technical formality. The court did not follow the contrary dictum in Duffy, relied on the reasoning in Wolley, and confined Warren and Jackson to cases not governed by section 7(2).
3. Supply of blood specimen. Section 15(5) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 was satisfied where the officer offered the specimen and placed it in the appellant’s handbag. The magistrates were entitled to find that she had been supplied with a sample.
4. No order for costs was made because the appellant was publicly funded.

• South East Surrey Justices, Dorking Magistrates’ Court: convicted the appellant on 12 November 2002.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal by way of case stated and answered all three questions in the affirmative: [2004] EWHC 3165 (Admin).