Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, section 16

Documentary evidence as to specimens in such proceedings

Part I Trial

(1)Evidence of the proportion of alcohol or a drug in a specimen of breath, blood or urine may, subject to subsections (3) and (4) below and to section 15(5) [F59and (5A)F59] of this Act, be given by the production of a document or documents purporting to be whichever of the following is appropriate, that is to say—

(a)a statement automatically produced by the device by which the proportion of alcohol in a specimen of breath was measured and a certificate signed by a constable (which may but need not be contained in the same document as the statement) that the statement relates to a specimen provided by the accused at the date and time shown in the statement, and

(b)a certificate signed by an authorised analyst as to the proportion of alcohol or any drug found in a specimen of blood or urine identified in the certificate.

(2)Subject to subsections (3) and (4) below, evidence that a specimen of blood was taken from the accused with his consent by a medical practitioner [F60or a registered health care professionalF60] may be given by the production of a document purporting to certify that fact and to be signed by a medical practitioner [F60or a registered health care professionalF60] .

(3)Subject to subsection (4) below—

(a)a document purporting to be such a statement or such a certificate (or both such a statement and such a certificate) as is mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above is admissible in evidence on behalf of the prosecution in pursuance of this section only if a copy of it either has been handed to the accused when the document was produced or has been served on him not later than seven days before the hearing, and

(b)any other document is so admissible only if a copy of it has been served on the accused not later than seven days before the hearing.

(4)A document purporting to be a certificate (or so much of a document as purports to be a certificate) is not so admissible if the accused, not later than three days before the hearing or within such further time as the court may in special circumstances allow, has served notice on the prosecutor requiring the attendance at the hearing of the person by whom the document purports to be signed.

(5)In Scotland—

(a)a document produced in evidence on behalf of the prosecution in pursuance of subsection (1) or (2) above and, where the person by whom the document was signed is called as a witness, the evidence of that person, shall be sufficient evidence of the facts stated in the document, and

(b)a written execution purporting to be signed by the person who handed to or served on the accused or the prosecutor a copy of the document or of the notice in terms of subsection (3) or (4) above, together with, where appropriate, a post office receipt for the registered or recorded delivery letter shall be sufficient evidence of the handing or service of such a copy or notice.

(6)A copy of a certificate required by this section to be served on the accused or a notice required by this section to be served on the prosecutor may [F61—

(a)if the proceedings mentioned in section 15(1) take place in England and Wales, be served in accordance with Criminal Procedure Rules, or

(b)if the proceedings take place elsewhere,F61] be served personally or sent by registered post or recorded delivery service.

F62 (6A). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(7) In this section “authorised analyst” means—

(a)any person possessing the qualifications prescribed by regulations made under [F63section 27 of the Food Safety Act 1990F63] as qualifying persons for appointment as public analysts under those Acts, and

(b)any other person authorised by the Secretary of State to make analyses for the purposes of this section.

Cases considering section 16 15

Olajide, R (On the Application Of) v Stratford Magistrates' Court

[2018] EWHC 2159 (Admin) · 19 July 2018Limits

The court interpreted section 16 as providing a documentary evidential route for proving alcohol levels, without making that route exhaustive. Other admissible evidence may establish the result of an evidential breath test (see paras [13]-[20]). The court treated section 16(1) as permitting proof of the proportion of alcohol in breath through specified documentary evidence, subject to subsection (3), while recognising that alternative proof may be available (see paras [13]-[17]). The court identified section 16(1)(a) as the statutory basis for documentary proof by an automatically produced device statement and a constable’s certificate. It held that this route did not exclude proof through admissible oral evidence (see paras [13]-[20]). The court treated subsection (3) as imposing conditions on the admissibility of the documentary evidence described in subsection (1), including the service requirement, but held that non-compliance would not prevent proof by other admissible evidence (see paras [13]-[20]). The court did not decide whether the breathalyser printout had been handed to the accused as required. It held that the issue was immaterial because the alcohol level was independently proved by the officer’s admissible evidence (see paras [15]-[20]).

Brett v Director of Public Prosecutions

[2009] EWHC 440 (Admin) · 16 March 2009Limits

Interpreted as a permissive evidential route allowing proof of alcohol analysis by production of an authorised analyst’s certificate. It does not exclude proof through section 116 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (see paras [7]; [10]-[11]). Considered as part of the statutory conditions governing admissibility of documents under section 16. The provision did not prevent reliance on the separate hearsay route in section 116 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (see para [7]). Limited so that a notice requiring the analyst’s attendance prevents admission by the section 16 certificate route, but does not prevent admission under section 116 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 where its conditions are met (see paras [7]; [10]-[11]). Referred to in explaining the statutory mechanisms for serving an analyst’s certificate. The court did not decide a separate issue under this subsection (see para [9]).

Crown Prosecution Service v Sedgemoor Justices

[2007] EWHC 1803 (Admin) · 3 July 2007Limits

Interpreted as permissive. It provides a certificate route for proving analysis by an authorised analyst but does not exclude other admissible forms of proof. (see paras [23]; [27]-[28]) Used by analogy with section 16(1)(b) to confirm that the certificate method is not exclusive and that other reliable expert evidence may be admitted. (see para [27]) Applied to blood-analysis evidence. It permits proof by certificate signed by an authorised analyst but does not require all analysis evidence to come from such an analyst. (see paras [27]-[31]) Interpreted as imposing service requirements where a certificate route is used. It does not determine whether other means of proof are excluded. (see paras [25]-[26]) Recognised as giving the accused the right to require the attendance of the analyst where the certificate procedure is used. Equivalent notice and attendance rights were available for the witness evidence in this case. (see paras [16]; [19]; [25]-[26]) Interpreted as prescribing how service is to be accomplished, rather than imposing the underlying service requirement. (see paras [20]; [25]) Defines an authorised analyst. The court held that lack of authorisation under this subsection alone did not make otherwise expert and reliable analysis evidence inadmissible. (see paras [21]; [28]; [31]-[32])

1 more judgment, and what each says about section 16, are in the case-law panel in the full Act.

Amendments and notes

7 notes from legislation.gov.uk

Amendments

  1. F59Words in s. 16(1) inserted (1.10.2002) by 2002 c. 53, s. 57(5); S.I. 2002/2306 art. 2(d)(v)
  2. F60Words in s. 16(2) inserted (1.4.2003) by Police Reform Act 2002 (c. 30), ss. 57(6), 108(2); S.I. 2003/808, art. 2(e)
  3. F61Words in s. 16(6) inserted (28.6.2022) by Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 (c. 35), s. 51(3), Sch. 1 para. 11(4)
  4. F62S. 16(6A) repealed (18.6.2012 for specified purposes, 5.11.2012 for specified purposes, 28.5.2013 for specified purposes) by Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44), s. 336(3)(4), Sch. 3 para. 61(4), Sch. 37 Pt. 4; S.I. 2012/1320, art. 4(1)(c)(d)(2)(3) (with art. 5) (see S.I. 2012/2574, art. 4(2) and S.I. 2013/1103, art. 4); S.I. 2012/2574, art. 2(2)(3)(c)(d), Sch. (with arts. 3, 4) (as amended (4.11.2012) by S.I. 2012/2761, art. 2) (with S.I. 2013/1103, art. 4); S.I. 2013/1103, art. 2(1)(c)(d)(2)(3) (with arts. 3, 4) text repealed for certain specified purposes only, see the commentary.
  5. F63Words substituted by Food Safety Act 1990 (c. 16, SIF 53:1, 2), s. 59(1), Sch. 3 para. 38

Modifications

  1. C30S. 16 applied (with modifications) (29.3.2004 for specified purposes, 30.3.2004 in so far as not already in force) by Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 (c. 20), s. 83(1)(3); S.I. 2004/827, arts. 2, 3(f)
  2. C31S. 16 applied (with modifications) (29.3.2004 for specified purposes, 30.3.2004 in so far as not already in force) by Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 (c. 20), s. 96(1)(3); S.I. 2004/827, arts. 2, 3(s)