Ryder v Crown Prosecution Service

Ryder v Crown Prosecution Service

The statutory requirement under section 7(5) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is satisfied when urine is collected and provided to the officer, even if via a catheter, and emptying the catheter chamber and collecting subsequent urine constitutes separate specimens. The appellant consented to the process, and the procedure did not deprive him of a full and fair opportunity to provide specimens. The magistrates were correct in their interpretation and application of the law.

Parties
Claimant: Ryder; Defendant: Crown Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (case Stated) / Judgment on Appeal From Magistrates' Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Provision of Urine Specimens, Interpretation of Road Traffic Act 1988 Section 7(5), Procedural Requirements for Evidence in Drink Driving Offences, Catheterisation and Specimen Provision
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Provision of Urine Specimens Interpretation of Road Traffic Act 1988 Section 7(5) Procedural Requirements for Evidence in Drink Driving Offences Catheterisation and Specimen Provision

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ryder

Claimant

Crown Prosecution Service

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (case Stated) / Judgment on Appeal From Magistrates' Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct statutory interpretation of 'provides' in section 7(5) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 regarding urine specimens?
  2. 2 Does the use of a catheter affect the validity of urine specimens for analysis under the Act?
  3. 3 Were two separate specimens of urine provided as required by law?

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory requirement under section 7(5) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is satisfied when urine is collected and provided to the officer, even if via a catheter, and emptying the catheter chamber and collecting subsequent urine constitutes separate specimens. The appellant consented to the process, and the procedure did not deprive him of a full and fair opportunity to provide specimens. The magistrates were correct in their interpretation and application of the law.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld
  • Costs to be remitted to a District Judge for detailed assessment under publicly-funded representation