BY WHAT RIGHT?

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20281, 16 April 1934, Page 4

BY WHAT RIGHT?

Drunkenness Tests for Motorists. JUDGE’S CRITICISM. Mr Justice Rigby Swift protested at Liverpool Assizes, England, against doctors putting tests to motorists detained by the police on suspicion of being under the influence of drink. A motorist was in the dock who was acquitted at the last Manchester Assizes on a charge of manslaughter. Arising out of the same circumstances he was charged v:ith being under the influence of drink and driving dangerously. Dr Glover, police surgeon, of Great Crosby, gave evidence that he formed his opinion of the man's condition after making tests. Mr‘Justice Swift: By what right did you examine him? Dr Glover: He was told I was a police surgeon and he expressed no unwillingness. The Judge: What startles me is the way people like the present witnesscome along and say they examined somebody, put him through various tests, and then, finding him too drunk to understand anything which had been going on, certify him as drunk. I don’t know of any right to do such a thing. Mr Blac.kledge (for the prosecution) : In a case where a prisoner cannot understand. I agree, but this man was only certified as being so under the influence of drink as not to be capable of driving a car. Powers Exceeded. Mr Justice Swift: Yet so free from drink as to give consent to having evidence prepared—l don’t say improperly—against him. Mr Blackledge: The position is a practical one from the prisoner’s point of view. If he answers the tests he is free. It is only British freedom. The Judge: That is just what I am concerned about. I object to these inroads on British freedom, and the police have no right to apply tests to a man like the prisoner without his consent. If they say he is able to give consent, then they have no business to come here and say he is drunk because drunkenness destroys consent. After hearing that the man had been acquitted on the manslaughter charge on the same set of facts, the jury stopped the case and returned a verdict of “ Not Guilty.”