Correct on the date of publication - 13 January 2025
Question:
A suspect suffering a panic attack when required to provide a sample for analysis in drink/drive cases, is sometimes suggested as being a reasonable excuse for not providing the sample. What is the situation?
Answer:
There are numerous cases on what might constitute a reasonable excuse for failing to provide specimens and samples under the drink/drug and drive legislation.
Of particular relevance to this question is the case of Director of Public Prosecutions v Falzarano (2000), whereby F found herself being prosecuted for failing to provide a specimen of breath contrary to section 7(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and subsequently provided evidence that she had done her best to provide a sample of breath but had been unable to do so due to suffering a panic attack at the police station. Although the medical evidence asserted that the panic attacks did not impair her ability to understand what was being said to her and that there were no physical or mental reasons why a specimen could not have been provided, the magistrates concluded that F had provided a reasonable excuse for failing to provide specimens of breath.
The DPP appealed against the Magistrates' decision but the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal. It held that the justices had been entitled to hold that a lawful excuse for failure to provide a breath test had been given where medical evidence showed that F was liable to suffer panic attacks when faced with stressful situations unless she had medical intervention.
It concluded that the decision of the magistrates was neither perverse nor illogical, but stated that cases where such a defence could be relied upon without medical evidence would be rare.
View the full Legal Q&A document here, with links to related and similar legal questions.
