PROCURATOR FISCAL, ALLOA v. PETER BAINBRIDGE [2000] ScotHC 38 (22nd March, 2000)

PROCURATOR FISCAL, ALLOA v. PETER BAINBRIDGE [2000] ScotHC 38 (22nd March, 2000)

The sheriff erred in law by applying the wrong test to whether the police had reasonable cause to require a blood specimen. The police, having been informed of the respondent's asthma and failed breath attempt, had reasonable cause to believe a breath specimen could not be provided for medical reasons. The sheriff's reasoning regarding the inhaler and the operation of the machine was speculative and unsupported by evidence or statute.

Citation
[2000] ScotHC 38
Parties
Appellant: PROCURATOR FISCAL, Alloa; Respondent: PETER BAINBRIDGE
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal by Stated Case (criminal) / Appeal Against Acquittal
Outcome
Sheriff's verdict set aside; authority granted for new prosecution.
Legal Topics
Driving Under the Influence, Evidentiary Procedure, Police Powers, Medical Excuses for Breath Specimen
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Driving Under the Influence Evidentiary Procedure Police Powers Medical Excuses for Breath Specimen

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PROCURATOR FISCAL, Alloa

Appellant

PETER BAINBRIDGE

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Crown Appeal by Stated Case (criminal) / Appeal Against Acquittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether police had reasonable cause to require a blood specimen for medical reasons under section 7(3)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988
  2. 2 Whether the sheriff misdirected himself in law regarding the admissibility of blood/alcohol evidence
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's inability to provide a breath specimen due to asthma justified requiring a blood specimen

Ratio Decidendi

The sheriff erred in law by applying the wrong test to whether the police had reasonable cause to require a blood specimen. The police, having been informed of the respondent's asthma and failed breath attempt, had reasonable cause to believe a breath specimen could not be provided for medical reasons. The sheriff's reasoning regarding the inhaler and the operation of the machine was speculative and unsupported by evidence or statute.

Court Disposition

Sheriff's verdict set aside; authority granted for new prosecution.

Orders

  • Set aside the verdict of the sheriff under section 183(1)(d) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995
  • Authority granted to bring a new prosecution under section 185 of the Act