Townson v Director of Public Prosecutions

Where a suspect gives reasons for refusing a blood specimen, a police officer may decide whether those reasons are plainly incapable of being medical reasons. The officer must refer the matter to a medical practitioner where the reasons could rationally support the view that, for medical reasons, blood should not be taken. The practitioner, not the officer, decides the medical issue under section 7(4A) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. A prior medical consultation does not suffice if the suspect subsequently raises new potential medical reasons. The procedure is flawed if the officer dismisses such reasons and thereby prevents medical intervention.

The claimant appealed by case stated against the dismissal by Chester Crown Court of his appeal from conviction by Chester Magistrates’ Court. He had been convicted under section 7(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for failing, without reasonable excuse, to provide a blood specimen for analysis.

At hospital, a doctor initially raised no objection to blood or breath testing. The claimant then refused a blood specimen, giving four reasons: difficulty finding veins, pain, diabetes and high blood pressure. The police officer decided that none could amount to a medical reason. The central question was whether those reasons were capable of being medical reasons requiring consideration by a medical practitioner.

1. Appeal allowed. The conviction was quashed. The reasons advanced by the claimant were capable of being medical reasons for refusing a blood specimen.
2. Under section 7(4A) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, the medical practitioner must decide whether, for medical reasons, a blood specimen cannot or should not be taken. The police officer has no power to determine the medical issue.
3. The officer may make a threshold judgment about whether a reason is capable of being medical. This permits plainly non-medical excuses to be rejected without troubling the medical practitioner. It does not permit the officer to dismiss reasons which could rationally have medical significance.
4. The initial consultation with the doctor complied with section 9(1A), but it did not resolve the later issue. The claimant’s subsequent statements disclosed information not previously before the doctor and had to be referred for medical consideration.
5. Pain and difficulty finding veins might, depending on the circumstances, raise medical issues. Diabetes and high blood pressure were plainly matters which the officer could not reasonably treat as incapable of amounting to medical reasons. The officer’s view that the claimant was merely making excuses could not replace the medical opinion required by the statute.
6. The authorities, including Johnson v West Yorkshire Metropolitan Police [1986] RTR 167, Wade v Director of Public Prosecutions [1996] RTR 177 and Butler v Director of Public Prosecutions [2001] RTR 430, confirmed that potential medical reasons must be placed before a medical practitioner.
7. Mr Justice Mitting agreed and added that the amendments to section 7 had not changed the police officer’s obligation to make a rational threshold judgment. If the objection could cause a doctor to consider that blood should not be taken, the doctor had to be summoned before the decision to obtain blood was finalised. Costs were ordered out of central funds.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Allowed the appeal by case stated against the decision of Chester Crown Court dated 22 December 2005. The conviction was quashed.
• Chester Crown Court: Dismissed the claimant’s appeal against conviction by Chester Magistrates’ Court.
• Chester Magistrates’ Court: Convicted the claimant under section 7(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.