McNeil v Director of Public Prosecutions

McNeil v Director of Public Prosecutions

The officer's belief that the Intoximeter result was unreliable due to the appellant burping was not reasonable in law; therefore, the subsequent request for a blood sample was unlawful and the conviction based on that sample cannot stand.

Parties
Claimant: McNeil; Defendant: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Driving With Excess Alcohol, Evidentiary Procedure, Breath and Blood Specimen Requirements
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Driving With Excess Alcohol Evidentiary Procedure Breath and Blood Specimen Requirements

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 1 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

McNeil

Claimant

Director of Public Prosecutions

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the police officer had reasonable cause to require a blood sample under Section 7(3)(bb) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 after the appellant burped during the breath test
  2. 2 Whether the officer's reliance on the official form provided lawful grounds for the blood sample request

Ratio Decidendi

The officer's belief that the Intoximeter result was unreliable due to the appellant burping was not reasonable in law; therefore, the subsequent request for a blood sample was unlawful and the conviction based on that sample cannot stand.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Conviction quashed
  • Costs to be paid out of central funds