Ryder v Crown Prosecution Service

Under the Road Traffic Act 1988, a urine specimen is provided when supplied to the requesting police officer, not when urine leaves the motorist’s body. Where urine flows continuously through a catheter, emptying a chamber and its subsequent refilling can produce separate specimens. The requirement for a previous specimen ensures that the specimen analysed is fresh and properly reflects the motorist’s bodily condition. The statutory hour gives a reasonable opportunity to provide the required specimens; it does not confer a right to delay the evidential specimen until the final moment.

The claimant appealed by way of case stated against his conviction by North Yorkshire Justices for driving with excess alcohol in urine, contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Because he was in hospital and catheterised, urine flowed continuously into a catheter bag. The officer emptied the initial chamber twice before collecting the evidential specimen. The central questions were when the specimen was provided and whether the procedure produced two specimens within section 7(5).

1. Appeal dismissed. “Provides” in section 7(5) refers to supplying a specimen to the requesting police officer. It does not refer simply to the moment of excretion.
2. The requirement for a previous specimen serves the purpose identified in Roney v Matthews [1975] RTR 273 and Nugent v Ridley [1987] RTR 412: ensuring that the specimen sent for analysis is fresh and properly reflects the bodily condition of the person from whom it is taken.
3. Prosser v Dickeson [1982] RTR 96 was distinguishable. Its vice was an officer’s direction interrupting the motorist’s provision of urine and depriving him of a full and fair opportunity. Here the motorist consented to the catheter procedure, and no issue was taken about consent.
4. Urine collected after the initial chamber had been emptied was not the same urine as that previously drained away. The Justices were therefore entitled to find that more than one specimen had been provided. The court did not need to decide whether the catheter was an extension of the claimant’s person.
5. Mr Justice Spencer agreed and added that the statutory hour represented a reasonable period in which the average motorist could produce two specimens. It was not an entitlement to postpone the evidential specimen until the last moment. Costs were remitted for detailed assessment.

The claimant appealed by way of case stated from his conviction by the North Yorkshire Justices sitting at Selby on 26 March 2010. The Administrative Court dismissed the appeal.