Drink driving hospital cases: blood tests, PACE issues, and defence options

Medical Practitioner Not Properly Notified

Firstly, one of the most powerful defences involves challenging whether police properly notified the medical practitioner in immediate charge of your case. Specifically, Section 9 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 requires this notification before any specimen request can be made.

Moreover, police must notify the specific doctor directly responsible for your treatment at that time—not just any doctor working at the hospital. Furthermore, if this notification did not occur, or if police cannot prove it occurred, the entire specimen procedure becomes unlawful. Consequently, all evidence obtained must be excluded, resulting in case dismissal.

Therefore, our drink driving hospital cases solicitors obtain:

• Full hospital medical records
• Nursing notes documenting which doctors were on duty
• Police evidence about who they claim to have notified
• Witness statements from medical staff

Medical Practitioner Objected to Specimen Collection

Secondly, if the medical practitioner in charge of your case objected to specimen provision on the grounds that it would prejudice your proper care and treatment, police cannot lawfully proceed. Moreover, even if the doctor did not explicitly object but expressed concerns about your medical condition, this can invalidate the procedure.

Furthermore, our drink driving hospital cases solicitors work closely with medical experts to establish whether, given your injuries and condition, the doctor should have objected. Additionally, we obtain expert medical evidence demonstrating that specimen provision was indeed prejudicial to your treatment.

Inadequate or No Statutory Warning Given

Thirdly, police must provide you with the statutory warning required by Section 7(7) that failure to provide may render you liable to prosecution. However, in hospital settings, particularly following accidents involving head injuries, pain, shock, or medication, the validity of this warning becomes highly questionable.

Specifically, our drink driving hospital cases solicitors challenge whether:

• You were sufficiently conscious and coherent to understand the warning
• The warning was clear and unambiguous in your medical condition
• Language barriers prevented proper understanding
• Pain medication or other drugs impaired your comprehension

Moreover, if police body-worn video footage shows you were clearly confused, distressed, or struggling to communicate, this provides compelling evidence that the warning was not properly understood.

Blood or Urine Sample Procedure Errors

Additionally, the procedures for collecting, storing, and analysing blood and urine samples are highly technical and strictly regulated. Consequently, any deviation from required procedures can render the evidence inadmissible.

Our drink driving hospital cases solicitors challenge:

Blood Sample Errors:

• Blood not taken by a qualified medical practitioner or registered health care professional
• Sample not properly divided into two portions in your presence
• Containers not properly sealed or labelled
• Chain of custody broken or poorly documented
• Sample not stored at correct temperature
• Analysis delayed beyond acceptable timeframes
• Laboratory procedures not properly followed

Urine Sample Errors:

• First sample not properly discarded
• Less than 20 minutes elapsed between samples
• Inadequate facilities or privacy provided
• Sample not provided voluntarily
• Containers not properly sealed or labelled
• Analysis procedures not correctly followed

You Were Not Actually Driving

Furthermore, in accident cases, proof that you were actually driving can sometimes be unclear. Specifically, if you were found unconscious in a crashed vehicle, police must prove you were the driver rather than a passenger.

Moreover, if there were other people in the vehicle who fled the scene, or if the accident occurred some time before you were found, establishing who was driving becomes problematic. Therefore, our drink driving hospital cases solicitors challenge identification and driving evidence where applicable.

Medical Reasons Preventing Sample Provision

Additionally, your injuries from the accident may have made it physically impossible to provide a blood or urine sample. Specifically:

• Severe needle phobia (trypanophobia) preventing blood samples
• Injuries preventing the physical ability to urinate
• Medical conditions making blood extraction dangerous
• Psychological trauma preventing cooperation

Importantly, if you had a reasonable excuse for failing to provide a specimen, you cannot be convicted. Therefore, our drink driving hospital cases solicitors obtain comprehensive medical evidence supporting reasonable excuse defences.

Back-Calculation Shows You Were Under the Limit

Moreover, if blood was taken several hours after you stopped driving, the alcohol reading may not accurately reflect your blood alcohol level while actually driving. Specifically, alcohol continues to be absorbed into the bloodstream for up to two hours after consumption stops.

Consequently, your blood alcohol level at the time of hospital testing may be higher than it was while driving. Therefore, we instruct forensic toxicology experts to conduct back-calculation analysis proving you were under the legal limit when actually driving.

Hip Flask Defence

Furthermore, the "hip flask" defence applies when you consumed alcohol after the accident but before providing the specimen at hospital. Specifically, if you drank alcohol:

• At the accident scene before police arrival
• In the ambulance
• At the hospital before specimen provision

Then the prosecution cannot prove your alcohol level while driving exceeded the legal limit. However, you must have genuinely consumed alcohol post-accident rather than fabricating this defence. Moreover, documentary evidence and witness testimony must support this defence. Therefore, our drink driving hospital cases solicitors carefully evaluate whether the hip flask defence applies to your case.

PACE Breaches and Unlawful Detention

Additionally, any breach of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) or its Codes of Practice can result in evidence being excluded. Specifically, our drink driving hospital cases solicitors examine whether:

• Your arrest was lawful
• You were properly cautioned
• Your rights were explained
• Custody records were properly maintained
• Detention was authorised at appropriate intervals
• You were provided access to legal advice

Moreover, any PACE breach can lead to the exclusion of evidence under Section 78 PACE, resulting in case dismissal.

Accident Investigation Failures

Finally, if police failed to properly investigate the accident circumstances, this can undermine the entire prosecution. Specifically, if police:

• Did not preserve the accident scene
• Failed to obtain witness statements
• Did not conduct collision investigation
• Could not prove you were driving at the time alcohol was consumed

Then the prosecution case may be too weak to proceed. Therefore, our drink driving hospital cases solicitors scrutinise all accident investigation evidence.