Fears and Phobias in Motoring Law: Understanding the Legal Implications

In the realm of motoring law, one of the recurring charges we encounter involves the failure to provide a specimen of breath, blood, or urine. Interestingly, when we delve deeper into cases involving the refusal by a suspect to provide a blood specimen, a common underlying reason emerges – a fear of needles.

Properly defending such cases involving needle phobia requires a nuanced approach, considering two critical angles that the court will assess:

Firstly, the court will wish to ascertain that there were legitimate medical or other substantial reasons why a specimen of blood could not be provided.

Secondly, the court will need to evaluate whether the medical reason put forth qualifies as a reasonable excuse for the failure to provide a blood specimen for analysis.

It is not uncommon for the police, prosecution, or the court to blur the lines between these two aspects, but it is crucial to distinguish them, as emphasized in the notable case of DPP v Camp [2017] EWHC 3119. In this case, Lindblom LJ articulated the distinction:

Therefore, it is incumbent not only to consider whether needle phobia constitutes a “reasonable excuse” in law but also whether the officer who made the requirement adequately investigated any raised medical reasons. Given that police officers typically lack the medical expertise to determine the legitimacy of a medical reason, they should, as a matter of legal precedent, seek input from a healthcare professional before dismissing such claims.

Failure to investigate a potential medical reason raised by a subject could render the requirement for a sample unlawful, as established in DPP v Wade [1996] RTR 177.

In addition to this argument, we often argue that needle phobia itself can serve as a reasonable excuse for the non-provision of a blood specimen. For an excuse to be deemed “reasonable,” it must either physically or mentally incapacitate the defendant from providing a specimen or pose a substantial risk to their health. Typically, for needle phobia to qualify as a reasonable excuse, it necessitates the presentation of medical evidence from the defence demonstrating an insurmountable aversion to blood provision or needle insertion. Geoffrey Miller Solicitors routinely engage leading forensic psychiatrists to provide expert evidence in these cases, helping establish whether our clients genuinely suffer from needle phobia.

Often, the needle phobia will not be clearly documented within medical records because people who suffer from needle phobias tend to avoid visits to the GP. However, all is not lost if there are no obvious entries within medical records to demonstrate a phobia. We will undertake a whole host of investigations with the input of a forensic psychiatrist to piece together a history of needle phobia.