Taylor v Director of Public Prosecutions

Under section 7(3)(bb) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a blood specimen may be required where the constable has reasonable cause to believe that an intoximeter has not produced a reliable indication. Mere reliance on administrative guidance is insufficient. A substantial discrepancy between two breath readings, together with the machine’s indication of a breath difference, may provide reasonable cause. Section 8 does not require the lower reading to be used where the reliability of the intoximeter results is reasonably in doubt. Continuity of a blood sample is a question of fact for the magistrates. The criminal standard may be satisfied by cumulative circumstantial evidence, including the defendant’s name, the police station, and the short period before dispatch.

This was an appeal by way of case stated from the appellant’s conviction by Rugby Magistrates’ Court for driving with excess alcohol. Two intoximeter readings differed significantly and the machine printed a breath-difference warning. The officer consequently required a blood specimen. The specimen analysed exceeded the permitted limit, but the recorded serial numbers differed.

The magistrates found both that the officer had been entitled to require blood and that the specimen analysed was the appellant’s. The questions were whether there was reasonable cause under section 7(3)(bb) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, and whether the evidence established continuity of the sample to the criminal standard.

1. Appeal dismissed. The magistrates were entitled to answer both questions in the prosecution’s favour.
2. Administrative guidance cannot alter the statutory test. Mere adherence to the MGDDA guidance would not, without more, establish reasonable cause under section 7(3)(bb) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
3. The relevant circumstances were not merely the officer’s explanation that the appellant had blown too hard or fast. The material factors were the significant difference between the two readings and the machine’s own indication of a breath difference. Those matters supplied evidence from which the magistrates could conclude that the officer had reasonable cause to doubt the reliability of the intoximeter indication.
4. The conclusion was consistent with DPP v Smith (Robert James) [2000] RTL 341, where a marked discrepancy between readings justified requiring a blood specimen. Section 8, requiring the lower reading to be taken, assumes that the intoximeter results can be treated as reliable. It does not prevent a blood specimen being required where there is reasonable cause to doubt that reliability.
5. Whether the blood analysed was the sample provided was a factual question. The magistrates had to decide whether the evidence proved continuity beyond reasonable doubt, not whether further safeguards or information might have reduced uncertainty. The relevant cumulative factors were the appellant’s full name on the sample, its removal from the same police station, and the short interval between collection and dispatch. The serial-number discrepancy was capable of being treated as an everyday transcription error; a materially different number might have led to a different conclusion.
6. Bentley v Chief Constable of Northumberland and Paterson v Director of Public Prosecutions were fact-sensitive decisions and established no general rule requiring the same outcome. The additional evidence in the present case entitled the magistrates to be sure that the analysed specimen was the appellant’s.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal by way of case stated from Rugby Magistrates’ Court was dismissed. The magistrates’ findings on the legality of requiring a blood specimen and on sample continuity were upheld.
• Rugby Magistrates’ Court: On 27 June 2008 the appellant was convicted of driving with excess alcohol.