Medical Excuses and Motoring Offences: When Do They Hold Up in Court?

In motoring law, defendants often cite medical conditions to explain their actions. With a limitless range of medical excuses available, the key question is when do they actually hold up in court?

Reasonable Excuse

Medical excuses are most commonly raised in failing to provide a specimen for analysis cases. This is because the concept of potentially having a medical (or other reason) not to provide a specimen is enshrined in the statute in a multitude of ways.

For example, section 7(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 creates a gateway for officers to move on to alternative specimens when there are extenuating circumstances, such as when a constable has reasonable grounds to believe that for medical reasons a specimen of breath cannot be provided or should not be required. This investigation of potential medical reasons is mirrored in the MGDD/A procedural form at A13 where it states:

“Are there any medical or other reasons why you cannot or should not provide two specimens of breath?”

When considering the text at A13 officers are invited to consider the note at A13 which invites the officer to address their mind to the statutory language at section 7(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988:

“Those genuinely unable to provide a specimen of breath should not be prosecuted for failing to provide. Account should be taken of any grounds which give rise to a reason to believe there is a medical condition, whether claimed or not. Failing to Provide must always be without reasonable excuse. Where a medical reason is claimed it may constitute reasonable excuse. If the officer considers it doesn’t, reasons should be recorded at A24”

The note at A13 directs the officer to investigate the essential ingredient of the offence, namely that the “failure” be without “reasonable excuse”. A reasonable excuse typically must be a physical or mental inability to provide, often caused by medical conditions or other reasons.

Due to the intrinsic nature between medical reasons and failing to provide a specimen, it is often the case that such medical excuses hold up in court if established evidentially and are supported by expert evidence.

Mental Health

Not all medical excuses are physical and therefore it is often the case in motoring matters that defendants raise their mental health issues as a reason for behaving in a certain way. Whilst mental health issues will not always be a defence to a motoring allegation, there are circumstances where they can play an important role in defending a charge.

By way of an example, during the course of an investigation into a drink or drug driving related offence, defendants have to be warned about the consequences of failing to provide a specimen of breath, blood, or urine for analysis. This warning which is often referred to as the “statutory warning” must not only be read but also must be effectively communicated to a defendant. The case of Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary v Singh [1988] R.T.R. 107 makes clear that if a defendant is suffering from a mental health condition (such as anxiety) and the warning is found to not have impinged on their mind or was not understood by that person as a warning, it cannot be considered an adequate warning and there must be an acquittal.

Duress of Circumstances

In extreme medical situations, it may be possible to advance that the due to a medical emergency a motorist has a defence due to committing the offence out of necessity.

For such a defence to be established, two elements must be considered:

1. Was the defendant or might the defendant have been induced to act as they did because they feared that if they did not, death or serious injury would result to them? (the subjective element)
2. Would a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing the defendant’s characteristics have acted in the situation in the way they did? (objective element).

There are further elements which would need to be considered by the court, including the persistence of the threat and whether the response was proportionate, but if the criteria is established the defence of duress could apply to a extreme medical situation.

Non-insane automatism

Whilst extremely uncommon, a motorist may find themselves with a defence if they have committed a crime in circumstances where their actions can be said to be involuntary.  For a defence of non-insane automatism to be raised the following requirements must be met:

• There must be an involuntary action arising from an external source.
• The action must be completely involuntary.
• The automatism must not be self-induced.

The most likely circumstance for this to occur in a motoring case is when a diabetic suffers from a hypoglycemic attack resulting in the offence being committed.

Special Reasons

Medical excuses can also be raised when a defendant is pleading guilty. One of the ways a defendant can see a more lenient sentence is if special reasons apply. For something to constitute a special reason, it must:

• Be a mitigating or extenuating circumstance;
• Not amount in law to a defence to the charge;
• Be directly connected with the commission of the offence; and
• Be one which the court ought properly to take into consideration when imposing a sentence.

Medical emergencies can meet this description. For example, a motorist may be able to advance special reasons in circumstances where they were speeding to respond to a genuine medical emergency.

Another potential medical excuse revolves around gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD). It is often submitted that a defendant’s breath sample may have been elevated by alcohol in the upper respiratory tract caused by their medical condition. The case of Woolfe v DPP [2006] EWHC 1497 (Admin) makes clear that a medical condition (such as GORD) which causes acid reflux could constitute a reason not to endorse or disqualify.

How can Olliers help?

Not all medical excuses will be accepted by the court. Therefore, early legal advice can make a significant difference in preparing your case. Our expert motoring solicitors are here to help, offering confidential and professional legal support at every stage of your case. 

Contact our specialist motoring team by emailing info@olliers.com or by telephoning 01618341515 (Manchester) or 02038836790 (London).