Coe, R. v

For an offence under section 3A(1)(c) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, the prosecution need prove careless driving causing death and an unjustified failure to provide a specimen. It need not prove intoxication or the quantity of alcohol consumed.

Section 15 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, including its safeguards governing blood specimens, applies only to the forms of section 3A offence in which drink or drugs are an element. It does not govern an offence based on failure to provide a specimen. Relevant hospital blood-analysis evidence may nevertheless be admitted, subject to reliability and fairness. Its admissibility depends on the facts of the individual case.

Mr Coe was convicted at the Crown Court at Swindon of causing death by careless driving while failing, without reasonable excuse, to provide specimens under section 3A(1)(c) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. He was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment and disqualified from driving for five years, until passing an extended driving test.

The collision killed a pedestrian at a pelican crossing. The prosecution adduced evidence that Mr Coe failed to keep a proper lookout and deliberately obstructed attempts to obtain breath and blood specimens. It also relied on analysis of a routine hospital blood sample showing a high alcohol level.

On appeal, Mr Coe challenged the admission of that analysis under section 15 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 and section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. He also sought leave to appeal against sentence. The central issues were whether the evidence rendered the conviction unsafe and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. The appeal against conviction was dismissed. The prosecution had to prove careless driving causing death and failure without reasonable excuse to provide specimens. There was ample evidence of both matters independently of the hospital blood analysis. The appellant had an unobstructed view of the crossing, failed to keep a proper lookout and braked too late. The jury was also entitled to find that he was conscious, deliberately avoided providing specimens and had no reasonable excuse. Accordingly, even if the blood evidence had been wrongly admitted, the conviction remained safe.

2. Although unnecessary to the disposal of the conviction appeal, the court held that the blood-analysis evidence was relevant. A very high alcohol level could assist the jury on whether the driving was careless, why the appellant refused specimens, and the credibility of his account of drinking only two pints. The trial judge correctly confined the jury to reliable evidence and to its proper evidential use. The court applied the substantial-weight approach in R v McBride [1961] 3 WLR 549.

3. Section 15 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 did not render the evidence inadmissible. Although section 15(2) can encompass a routine hospital sample, section 15 as a whole applies, in relation to section 3A, only to paragraphs (a) and (b), where drink or drugs are ingredients of the offence. It does not apply to paragraphs (c) and (d), which concern failure to provide or permit testing of specimens. That construction was supported by R v Ash [1999] RTR 34.

4. Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 did not require exclusion. The sample showed alcohol at more than two and a half times the prescribed limit. The initial concern about contamination was answered by the evidence of sterile collection and testing procedures. There was no evidence of bad faith by hospital staff or the police. The court stressed that admissibility of routine hospital samples will depend on the facts of each case.

5. Leave to appeal against sentence was refused. Applying the sentencing guidance in R v Cooksley and Others [2003] 2 Crim App R 18 and R v Richardson and Robertson [2007] 2 Crim App R (S) 36, a five-year sentence was not manifestly excessive. The alcohol level, previous excess-alcohol conviction and breach of a suspended sentence supported that conclusion.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2009] EWCA Crim 1452, dismissed the appeal against conviction and refused leave to appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Swindon — His Honour Judge Field QC convicted Mr Coe of an offence contrary to section 3A of the Road Traffic Act 1988, imposed five years’ imprisonment, and disqualified him from driving for five years until he passed an extended driving test.