Citation

Rix KJB. J. Clin. Forensic Med. 1996; 3(4): 173-177.

Affiliation

Leeds Community and Mental Health Services Teaching NHS Trust, High Royds Hospital, Menston, Ilkley, West Yorkshire, UK.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1996, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

15335604

Abstract

A man was charged with driving over the prescribed alcohol limit. Both specimens of breath contained less than 50 micrograms of alcohol per 100 ml and he refused to submit to a blood test. His defence was that he had a phobia of blood and that he should have been allowed to claim to replace the breath specimens with a specimen of urine. Evidence that he had a phobia was accepted by the prosecution. A woman was arrested on suspicion of driving whilst unfit through drink or drugs. She was charged with refusing to provide a specimen of blood. It was her defence that she had a phobia of needles. Evidence that she had a phobia was not accepted by the prosecution. In both cases the court was asked to decide whether or not the forensic medical examiner had been seriously wrong in deciding that there was no medical reason for refusing a specimen of blood. The man was acquitted and the woman was found guilty. These cases are used to describe the law relating to blood or needle phobias and to suggest how such cases should be approached by the police and forensic medical examiners.