(1)While a person is at a hospital as a patient he shall not be required to co-operate with a preliminary test or to provide a specimen under section 7 of this Act unless the medical practitioner in immediate charge of his case has been notified of the proposal to make the requirement; and—
(a)if the requirement is then made, it shall be for co-operation with a test administered, or for the provision of a specimen, at the hospital , but
(b)if the medical practitioner objects on the ground specified in subsection (2) below, the requirement shall not be made.
(1A)While a person is at a hospital as a patient, no specimen of blood shall be taken from him under section 7A of this Act and he shall not be required to give his permission for a laboratory test of a specimen taken under that section unless the medical practitioner in immediate charge of his case—
(a)has been notified of the proposal to take the specimen or to make the requirement; and
(b)has not objected on the ground specified in subsection (2).
(2)The ground on which the medical practitioner may object is—
(a)in a case falling within subsection (1), that the requirement or the provision of the specimen or (if one is required) the warning required by section 7(7) of this Act would be prejudicial to the proper care and treatment of the patient; and
(b)in a case falling within subsection (1A), that the taking of the specimen, the requirement or the warning required by section 7A(5) of this Act would be so prejudicial.
Cases considering section 9 5
[2008] EWCA Crim 1568 · 22 July 2008Interprets
The court noted that the defence did not contend at trial that the blood evidence was inadmissible for breach of section 9. It considered that any such challenge would have been extremely doubtful. (see paras [20]; [22]; [26])
The court held that the condition is mandatory. It requires notification of the medical practitioner in immediate charge and no objection by that practitioner; it does not require the practitioner’s consent. The trial judge’s contrary direction was erroneous but immaterial on the verdict. (see paras [28]-[29])
[2026] EWHC 1789 (Admin) · 16 July 2026Limits
Section 9 provides safeguards for a suspect who is a hospital patient. Its requirements were considered alongside section 7 and the section 78 fairness assessment. (see paras [62], [73], [114], [128]-[129])
A hospital patient may not be required to provide a specimen unless the medical practitioner in immediate charge has been notified of the proposal. (see para [62])
Where the hospital requirement is made, it must be for co-operation with a test or provision of a specimen at the hospital. (see para [62])
A hospital requirement must not be made where the medical practitioner objects on the statutory medical-care ground. (see para [62])
Section 9(2) identifies the ground on which the hospital doctor may object: that the requirement, specimen or warning would prejudice the patient’s proper care and treatment. (see para [62])
The provision identifies prejudice to the proper care and treatment of the patient as the relevant medical ground for objection. (see para [62])
[2010] EWHC 2886 (Admin) · 9 July 2010Limits
Interprets the hospital-patient protection as applying when a requirement is made while the person is at hospital as a patient, including notification of the medical practitioner in immediate charge. Breach did not render later police-station specimens inadmissible. (see paras [14], [22]-[23], [31])
Records the separate hospital safeguards for blood specimens and laboratory tests, which were part of the statutory context but were not determinative of the later breath-specimen admissibility issue. (see para [14])
Identifies the medical ground for objection as prejudice to the proper care and treatment of the patient; the absence of compliance did not affect admissibility of later properly obtained specimens. (see paras [14], [22]-[23])
What each judgment says about section 9 is in the case-law panel in the full Act.