Road traffic law

By Paul Niekirk, barrister

Laboratory specimenWhen, in connection with a drink/drive offence, a driver provides a specimen of urine it must be provided within one hour of the request to provide it (Road Traffic Act 1988, s.7(5)).

The time for providing it is, however, extensible by a police officer and if it is so extended the fact that the specimen was provided more than one hour after the original request does not render its analysis inadmissible (DPP v Baldwin [2000] The Times, 17 May).

When a forensic scientist gave evidence as to the manner in which a specimen of blood supplied by a driver had been processed at a laboratory and analysed by gas chromatography, but failed to show that the computer used to obtain the results had been operating properly (s.69 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984), the prosecution was permitted to recall the witness after the close of the defence case to satisfy the court that the machines in the laboratory had been working properly.

An appeal to the Divisional Court was dismissed (Jolly v DPP [2000] Crim LR 471).

(Section 69 has subsequently been repealed by the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.)

AutomatismA defence of non-insane automatism is not available on a drink/drive charge where the driver's parasomnia is induced by alcohol and the driver has had previous experience of parasomnia following the consumption of alcohol

(Finegan v Heywood [2000] The Times, 10 May, High Court of Justiciary).