Ruling On Blood Tests

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31151, 30 August 1966, Page 3

Ruling On Blood Tests

(N.Z. Press Association!

WELLINGTON, August 29. The analysis of a blood sample taken without consent from a person suspected of intoxicated driving, was admissible as evidence, the Chief Justice (Sir Richard Wild) said in a judgment delivered today. His Honour dismissed an appeal by David Daily, aged 56, an engineer, against his conviction in the Magistrate’s Court on a charge of driving under the influence of drink. His Honour said that after being taken to the police station. Daily was examined

by a doctor who took a sample of his blood which was analysed. The analyst gave evidence on the alcohol content in the blood.

“This appeal is founded on a contention that, because the blood sample is said to have been taken without the defendant’s consent, and without warning that it might be used in evidence, the result of the analysis should not have been admitted in evidence,” said his Honour. “It is argued that blood samples are analogous to statements or confessions by accused persons and that the same principles govern the admissibility of both. So far as 1 am aware, this contention has not hitherto been considered by this Court. “The Magistrate made no finding of fact that the appel-

lant consciously consented to the taking of the sample or that he was warned that an analysis of it might be given in evidence. 1 therefore deal with the appeal on the footing that neither of these matters was established by the prosecution.

“In New Zealand the admissibility of statements that are confessional in character is governed by the Common Law and the Evidence Act. The circumstances in which such statements are usually made call for inquiry. “The fundamental reason for the restrictions imposed is, therefore, the law’s concern to let in only what is true and to keep out what may be untrue. That is why it guards against promises, threats of inducements which may bear on the mind which produces the statement. “But these influences cannot bear on the content of the blood. It is then not a question of what truth there may be in words but of what alcohol there is in blood. “In the one case, it is because no-one can see the true content of a man’s mind at the relevant time that the law imposes safeguards. “In the other, it is because an expert can determine and reveal the truth that I think the safeguards have no application.

“I wish to make it clear that this judgment is no warrant to the police or to medical practitioners dealing with persons suspected of driving while intoxicated to take blood samples without consent or explanation of their purpose.

“All 1 am deciding is that the principles that govern the admissibility of statements do not govern the admissibility of evidence relating to blood samples.

“It is still the duty of those concerned with law enforcement to treat suspected persons with courtesy and consideration. Where necessary in the interests of justice the courts will always use their discretion to exclude evidence which would operate unfairly against an accused person.”