Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from a decision of the justices for the North East London Commission Area sitting as a Magistrates' Court at The Court House in Romford on 25th May 1999. The justices upheld a submission on behalf of the respondent that there was no case to answer. The proceedings originated from an incident on 28th September 1998 at Elvet Avenue, Romford, where the respondent was charged with driving a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the prescribed limit, contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

The Magistrates' Court hearing took place over two days, 27th April and 25th May 1999. The police had stopped the respondent and obtained two breath specimens using a Lion Intoximeter machine, which showed discrepant readings (43 microgrammes and 33 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath), resulting in a 30.3% "blow difference." The police officer referred to guidance forms (MG DD/A and B) containing a table indicating that a difference exceeding 20% on an old generation device might mean the device did not produce a reliable indication.

Based solely on this table, the officer concluded the device was not operating reliably and required the respondent to provide a blood specimen. The blood analysis showed a blood alcohol level marginally above the legal limit (87 milligrammes per 100 millilitres). The justices found the officer's belief was based solely on the form MG DD/A, for which he had no formal training, and no evidence was provided about the form's scientific basis. Consequently, they ruled the blood evidence inadmissible and dismissed the information.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the decision of the police officer to require a blood specimen was founded on reasonable cause to believe that a reliable device was not available at the police station (section 7(3)(b) Road Traffic Act 1988).
2. Whether the officer had reasonable cause to believe that the device used had not produced a reliable indication of the proportion of alcohol in the breath (section 7(3)(bb) Road Traffic Act 1988).
3. Whether reliance on the guidance form MG DD/A, without formal training or evidence of its scientific basis, could constitute reasonable cause for belief.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The police officer had reasonable cause to believe the device was unreliable based on the guidance form MG DD/A and its table of breath difference ranges.
• The belief was reasonably founded on the contents and instructions of the form MG DD/A.

Respondent's Arguments

• The legality of the guidance form MG DD/A was challenged; if it was unlawful, the blood specimen evidence should be excluded.
• Alternatively, even if the form was lawful, the evidence should be excluded under section 78 of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
• The belief based solely on the form MG DD/A was not capable of constituting reasonable cause under section 7(3)(b) and (bb) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the statutory provisions of section 7(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, particularly subsections (b) and (bb), which govern when a blood specimen may be required. It acknowledged the practical need for procedural guidance for police officers and found that forms MG DD/A and B served as a plain language guide rather than binding instructions. The court noted that the device's calibration checks confirmed it was functioning correctly, but the significant disparity between the two breath samples reasonably suggested an unreliable indication.

The court rejected the justices' view that reliance on the form MG DD/A was insufficient to constitute reasonable cause, holding instead that the officer's belief, based on the form and the facts, was reasonable. The court emphasized that the form offered common sense guidance rather than legal or scientific instruction requiring formal proof of provenance or scientific basis. The court also clarified that the justices misread the form as giving "instructions" rather than "advice."

Consequently, the court concluded that the police officer had reasonable cause to require the blood specimen and that the appeal should be allowed.

Further, one judge noted exceptional circumstances not to remit the case back to the magistrates for rehearing, given the age of the case and the marginal excess of the respondent's blood alcohol level.

Holding and Implications

The court ALLOWED THE APPEAL, overturning the magistrates' decision that the blood specimen evidence was inadmissible.

The direct effect is that the evidence obtained via the blood specimen is admissible, and the respondent's conviction or prosecution may proceed accordingly. The court did not establish new precedent but clarified that reliance on procedural guidance forms, absent formal training or scientific evidence, can constitute reasonable cause for belief under the Road Traffic Act 1988. The decision was made without ordering a rehearing, reflecting the specific facts of this case and should not be taken as encouraging similar outcomes in other cases.