Baldwin v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1996] R.T.R. 238

Citation:Baldwin v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1996] R.T.R. 238

Rule of thumb: If you are pulled over and refuse to provide a urine test, is this a crime? You have up to 1 hour to provide a urine test or else you have committed a crime.

Judgment:

People have one hour to provide a urine test and this is an example of strict liability where it will be difficult to find any reasonable grounds not to do so, ‘I would observe that the words of Lord Bridge in Director of Public Prosecutions v. Warren [1993] R.T.R. 58 are not a statute. As I have endeavoured to set out, they are words to guide the lower courts in the interpretation of the statute and how this branch of the law should be approached. In my judgment, so long as the option given by the statute is explained fairly and properly so that the driver can make an informed decision, the requirements of justice and the efficacy of the driver's option given by the statute under section 8(2) are ensured. Of course, it is right, as Turner v. Director of Public Prosecutions (Note-1994) [1996] R.T.R. 274, 278L-279A requires, that the explanation of the matters that the driver has to be told in order to exercise his proper right should be detailed. However, on the facts of this case, in my judgment, this particular defendant did make an informed decision and was given all the necessary explanations and information that he would need to make a proper and informed decision’, Curtis J

centered image

Ratio-decidendi:

Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.