Criminal

Statutory requirement to provide urine sample within one hour of request - sample provided outside time limit - analysis of sample admissible in evidenceDirector of Public Prosecution v Baldwin: QBD (Kennedy LJ and Butterfield J): 29 March 2000

The defendant was asked by a police officer at 2am to provide two samples of urine.

He provided a second sample at 3.15am, analysis of which showed an alcohol level exceeding the prescribed limit.

On a charge of driving with a level of alcohol in his urine which exceeded the prescribed limit contrary to s.5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, the justices found no case to answer because the second sample was inadmissible in that it had not been provided in accordance with s.7(5) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which provided that a specimen of urine had to be provided within one hour of a request to provide it.

The prosecutor appealed by way of case stated.Michael P Taylor (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service, Manchester) for the prosecutor.

Nigel Ley (instructed by Nicholas Freeman, Manchester) for the defendant.Held, allowing the appeal, that the analysis of the second sample was admissible under s.7(5) of the Road Traffic Act 1988; that the only purpose of that subsection was to make finite the length of time in which a driver was required to provide a sample, and if he did not provide it within that time, he could be charged with failing to supply a sample; that a police officer was not obliged to extend that time, but if he did, the sample analysis would not be rendered inadmissible; and that that did not impose unfairness on a driver and ensured that the procedure was conducted within a reasonable period of time.