[F1CHAPTER 6U.K.Use of specimens in relation to offences under sections 20(1)(a) and 20A of the Armed Forces Act 2006
Textual Amendments
F1Pt. 11 Ch. 6 inserted (1.11.2013) by The Armed Forces (Interpretation, Translation and Alcohol and Drug Tests) Rules 2013 (S.I. 2013/2527), rules 1(2), 8
Application and interpretationU.K.
74A.—(1) This Chapter applies to proceedings for the hearing of an appeal against a finding that a relevant charge has been proved.
(2) In paragraph (1) “relevant charge” means a charge of an offence under—
(a)section 20(1)(a) of the Act (unfitness for duty through alcohol or drugs); or
(b)section 20A of the Act (exceeding alcohol limit for prescribed safety-critical duties).
(3) In this Chapter “drug”, “medical establishment”, “service police establishment” and “service policeman” have the meanings given by section 93I of the Act.
Use of specimensU.K.
74B.—(1) Evidence of the proportion of alcohol or any drug in a specimen of breath, blood or urine provided by or taken from the appellant shall, in all cases (including cases where the specimen was not provided or taken in connection with the alleged offence), be taken into account and, subject to paragraph (2), it shall be assumed that the proportion of alcohol in the appellant’s breath, blood or urine at the time of the alleged offence was not less than in the specimen.
(2) That assumption shall not be made if the appellant proves—
(a)that he consumed alcohol before he provided the specimen or had it taken from him, and after the time of the alleged offence; and
(b)that had he not done so the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine—
(i)in the case of an offence under section 20(1)(a) of the Act, would not have been such as to impair his ability to carry out the duty in question;
(ii)in the case of an offence under section 20A of the Act, would not have exceeded the relevant limit (within the meaning of that section).
(3) A specimen of blood shall be disregarded unless—
(a)it was taken from the appellant under section 93E of the Act; or
(b)it was taken from the appellant under section 93G of the Act and the appellant subsequently gave his permission for a laboratory test of the specimen.
(4) Where, at the time a specimen of blood or urine was provided by the appellant, he asked to be provided with such a specimen, evidence of the proportion of alcohol or any drug found in the specimen is not admissible on behalf of the Director unless—
(a)the specimen in which the alcohol or drug was found is one of two parts into which the specimen provided by the appellant was divided at the time it was provided; and
(b)the other part was supplied to the appellant.
(5) Where a specimen of blood was taken from the appellant under section 93G of the Act, evidence of the proportion of alcohol or any drug found in the specimen is not admissible on behalf of the Director unless—
(a)the specimen in which the alcohol or drug was found is one of two parts into which the specimen taken from the appellant was divided at the time it was taken; and
(b)any request to be supplied with the other part which was made by the appellant at the time when he gave his permission for a laboratory test of the specimen was complied with.
Documentary evidence as to specimensU.K.
74C.—(1) Evidence of the proportion of alcohol or any drug in a specimen of breath, blood or urine may, subject to paragraphs (3) and (4) and to rule 74B(4) and (5), be given by the production of a document or documents purporting to be whichever of the following is appropriate, that is to say—
(a)a statement automatically produced by the device by which the proportion of alcohol in a specimen of breath was measured and a certificate signed by a service policeman (which may but need not be contained in the same document as the statement) that the statement relates to a specimen provided by the appellant at the date and time shown in the statement; and
(b)a certificate signed by an authorised analyst as to the proportion of alcohol or any drug found in a specimen of blood or urine identified in the certificate.
(2) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), evidence that a specimen of blood was taken from the appellant with his consent by a registered medical practitioner or a registered nurse may be given by the production of a document purporting to certify that fact and to be signed by a registered medical practitioner or registered nurse.
(3) Subject to paragraph (4)—
(a)a document purporting to be such a statement or such a certificate (or both such a statement and such a certificate) as is mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is admissible in evidence on behalf of the Director in pursuance of this rule only if a copy of it either has been handed to the appellant when the document was produced or has been served on him not later than seven days before the hearing; and
(b)any other document is so admissible only if a copy of it has been served on the appellant not later than seven days before the hearing.
(4) A document purporting to be a certificate (or so much of a document as purports to be a certificate) is not so admissible if the appellant, not later than three days before the hearing or within such further time as the court may in special circumstances allow, has served notice on the Director requiring the attendance at the hearing of the person by whom the document purports to be signed.
(5) In this rule “authorised analyst” means—
(a)any person possessing the qualifications prescribed by regulations made under section 27 of the Food Safety Act 1990 as qualifying persons for appointment as public analysts under that Act; and
(b)any other person authorised by the Secretary of State to make analyses for the purposes of section 16 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 or this rule.]