CRIMINAL LITIGATION

The accused was arrested near the scene of a road traffic accident. It was accepted that he had a medical reason precluding him from providing a specimen of breath. He was asked to provide a specimen of urine instead.

He refused. He was charged with failing to provide a specimen of breath. The prosecution later sought to amend the charge to allege failure to provide a specimen of urine. By that time the sixmonth time limit for commencing proceedings in respect of the failure to supply a specimen of urine had expired.

HELD There is a distinct difference between a failure to provide a specimen of urine and one of breath. In those circumstances the decision of the justices to permit the amendment of the charge had to be quashed. It was therefore unnecessary to consider whether the amendment was or was not in the interests of justice.