Kangs Solicitors has secured an acquittal for a client charged with the offence of failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis following the suspicion that he had been driving whilst over the legal limit.

Suki Randhawa of Kangs Solicitors comments upon the circumstances of the acquittal and the relevant Case Law.     

If you are facing a motoring allegation of any nature, including a similar charge to that discussed in this article, it is essential that you seek immediate expert legal advice.          

Kangs Solicitors is a top ranked firm recognised by both the leading law directories, Chamber & Partners and the Legal 500, for criminal defence work of all nature including serious criminal offences arising from motoring matters.

For expert, robust advice on any motoring offence and for an initial non-obligation discussion, please call our team at any of our offices detailed below:

The Circumstances | Kangs Motoring Offences Solicitors

  • The attention of the police resulted from the manner of our client’s driving. 
  • Although our client had not provided a reasonable excuse for failing to provide the sample requested from him, the Officer who conducted the intoxilyser procedure commented that our client

‘was blowing into the machine and doing exactly as I had asked…. I was happy that [our client] was doing as I had asked and wasn’t trying to be dishonest to the test’.

  • Our client pleaded ‘not guilty plea’ and the Prosecution was requested to consider camera footage of him attempting to provide a specimen.  
  • Having considered the camera footage, the Statement from the Officer and representations made by Kangs Solicitors, the Prosecution decided not to take any further action against our client.

The Relevant Case Law | Kangs Motoring Defence Solicitors

  • In the case of Cotgrove v Cooney (1986) 11.WLUK294, upon Appeal, it was decided that the existence of a reasonable excuse under The Road Traffic Act 1972 Section 8(7) is a question of fact for the Justices.  In this case, the defendant was found by the Justices to have been cooperative, in that he had tried as hard as he could, but was unable to provide a specimen and thus had a reasonable excuse.  
  • However, in the case of Gaddy v Pollard (1988) 2WLUK 28, it was decided that the evidence of  the defendant that he was blowing into the breath machine as hard as he could, does not of itself, even if accepted, provide a reasonable excuse for not providing a specimen.  The defendant had stated that he had no chest complaint or similar relevant ailment and was blowing as hard as he could.  He was convicted of failing to provide a specimen without reasonable excuse and, upon appeal, it was found that there was no evidence of any reasonable excuse.
  • Subsequently, in the case of DPP v Eddowes (1990) 1WLUK591, the defendant, upon arrest, provided one specimen of breath that gave a very high reading. He failed to provide a second specimen, despite attempts to do so and the Justices were of the view that there was a reasonable excuse for the failure and the Prosecution case was dismissed. Upon Appeal by the Prosecution it was found that the Justices had been wrong and there was no reasonable excuse.  
  • In DPP v Simpson (2000) 1WLUK338, it was held that in order to establish the defence of reasonable excuse based on incapacity, the Defendant would have to adduce medical evidence. However, he failed to produce such evidence which meant that he had not satisfied the evidential burden upon him.

How Can We Help? | Kangs Road Traffic Offences Defence Solicitors

If any of the issues raised in this article affect you or you are concerned about your current predicament relating to any potential motoring matters, it is imperative that early immediate expert legal advice is sought.   

The Team at Kangs Solicitors is highly rated for its work in defending clients in relation to motoring matters and is available to assist clients in respect of all motoring matters.   

We welcome any enquiries by telephone or email.

Our team of lawyers is available to meet at any of our offices in London, Birmingham or Manchester, or alternatively, we are happy to arrange meetings via video conferencing. 

For initial enquiries, please contact:

Sukhdip Randhawa
0121 449 9888 | 020 7936 6396

Helen Holder
020 7936 63960121 449 9888

Amandeep Murria
0161 817 50200121 449 9888