Liam Clarke v Crown Prosecution Service

Documents recording a statutory blood-sampling procedure may be admissible as exhibits where the officer’s written statement identifies them and they are tendered in evidence under section 9(7) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. Hearsay contained in such documents may also be admitted by agreement under section 114(1)(c) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Whether consent to a blood specimen satisfies sections 11(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and 15(4) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 is fact-specific. Where the prescribed procedure is followed and consent is given in the presence of the medical professional taking the sample, the statutory requirements are satisfied.

The appellant was convicted by Harrogate Magistrates’ Court on two charges under section 5A(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, concerning cocaine and benzoylecgonine levels exceeding specified limits. The prosecution relied on Manual of Guidance, Drink and Drug Driving forms completed by a police officer and attached to his agreed written statement.

By way of Case Stated, the appellant challenged the admissibility of the forms and argued that consent had to be established through a two-stage process involving both the police officer and the medical professional. The Divisional Court considered whether the forms were admissible and whether the statutory consent requirements were met.

1. Disposition. The appeal was dismissed. The Magistrates were correct to admit the MGDD forms and, on the facts found, were correct to conclude that the statutory consent requirements were satisfied.
2. Admissibility. The forms were exhibits to PC Steventon’s agreed statement. His statement identified the forms by name, made clear that they related to the appellant, and the forms were attached to it. They were therefore admissible under section 9(7) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. The Magistrates were also entitled to find that the statement and attached forms had been agreed as evidence, so that the hearsay in the forms was admissible by agreement under section 114(1)(c) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
3. Consent. The issue whether consent given to a police officer alone at 16:52 would have sufficed did not arise for decision. The forms recorded a further affirmative consent at 17:29, given in the presence of the medical professional, before the blood was taken. That consent satisfied sections 11(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and 15(4) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
4. The question whether consent is effective in a different procedural sequence is fact-specific. Friel v Dickson and Persaud v DPP concerned doubtful consent and did not assist on the facts. The court observed that following the procedure in the MGDD forms would normally be likely to satisfy the statutory requirements.
5. The CPS guidance did not provide a definitive statement of the law on admissibility. The convictions remained undisturbed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal by way of Case Stated and upheld the convictions entered by the Magistrates on 3 October 2022.