Road traffic lawBy Paul Niekirk, barristerDrinking and driving offenceEvidence of the proportion of alcohol in a motorists breath, blood or urine in a specimen provided by the motorist for...Drinking and driving offenceEvidence of the proportion of alcohol in a motorists breath, blood or urine in a specimen provided by the motorist for analysis is assumed to be not less than the proportion of alcohol at the time of the alleged offence (cf section 15(2) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988).

In Millard v DPP [1990] RTR 201 it was held that this assumption was not rebuttable.

In Parker v DPP (2000) The Times, 26 January, this assumption was challenged on the ground of compatibility with the presumption of innocence (cf article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights).

In the latter case, the divisional court held that the irrebuttable assumption did not, in the context of the legislation as a whole, infringe convention rights.Where a driver who had collapsed before a sample of blood had been provided and was admitted to hospital, the police should (on asking a hospital doctor whether there was any reason why a specimen of blood should not be provided) advise the doctor of any medical condition (for example, immune system breakdown) of which they had been informed by the driver which might cause the doctor to prohibit the provision of a sample of blood (Butler v DPP (2001) The Times, 14 February).A motorist who wishes to advance medical reasons for not providing a specimen of breath for analysis should so inform the police officer at the police station, and cannot rely on having informed the police officer who administered the roadside breath test that he suffered from bronchitis (DPP v Lonsdale (2001) The Times, 16 February).InsuranceA clause in a policy providing for cover for the policy holder whilst driving (with consent) a motor vehicle neither owned by him nor held by him under a hire purchase agreement was held in Dodson v Peter H Dodson Insurance Services (2001) The Times, 24 January, to be effective even after the policy holder had disposed of the vehicle in respect of which he had taken out the policy; but the effect of such a clause in any particular case will depend on the specific provisions of the policy in question.The right of a claimant to seek payment of damages awarded against a driver from the drivers insurer is dependent upon the insurer having been given notice of the proceedings before or within seven days of their institution (section 152(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988).

Although informal contact by the claimant with the insurer before the commencement of proceedings might be held to constitute such notice, a claimant would be well advised to ensure that the insurer received written notice within seven days of the commencement of the proceedings (Wake v Page [2001] The Times, 9 February).

The court added that, however unattractive this might seem, in the absence of such notice the insurer would be entitled to defend the action right up to judgment and then, when judgment was entered, to raise for the first time the issue of notice under section 152(1)(a).

A court may refuse on grounds of public policy to allow a victim of an accident to seek the benefit of a drivers third-party insurance where the drivers action falls within the category of iniquitous (Charlton v Fisher (2001) The Times, 21 February, where the driver deliberately reversed and rammed a parked car with the claimant in it).TachographsThe driver of a vehicle which is required to be fitted with a tachograph who has to travel to a place other than the vehicles operating centre in order to take over the vehicle must duly record the time so taken under other periods of work (Criminal proceedings against Skills Motor Coaches Ltd (Case C 297/99) (2001) The Times, 20 February).

Sentences of eight months imprisonment imposed on employee drivers for falsifying tachograph records where they had a financial motive for so doing have been upheld by the Court of Appeal as not being manifestly excessive (R v Saunders, R v Hockings, R v Williams (2001) The Times, 20 February).