Drink-driving suspect who failed to give blood sample acquitted

SINGAPORE - In a first, a man arrested for suspected drink-driving has been acquitted of an offence even though he refused to provide a blood sample when police asked him to do so at a hospital.

The case involved a little-known provision in the Road Traffic Act (RTA).

It states that a hospital patient can only be compelled by a police officer to provide a specimen for analysis if the registered medical practitioner in-charge of the patient’s case gives the green light.

In written grounds issued on May 18, a district judge said that because Mr Muhammad Rajis Abdullah was a hospital patient at the time, the police could not lawfully demand a blood specimen from him without explicit authorisation from his doctor.

In other words, the burden was on the police to secure authorisation from Mr Rajis’ doctor before requiring the arrested person to give a blood sample, said district judge Prem Raj Prabakaran.

The judge said the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the man’s doctor had authorised the taking of a blood sample from the patient.

Without explicit authorisation, the police could not lawfully require Mr Rajis to provide a blood sample, and accordingly, he could not be convicted for failing to provide his blood sample, said the judge.

The judge noted that the provision creates a statutory safeguard that prioritises patient care and welfare over investigative or enforcement efforts.

“If authorisation is refused by the registered medical practitioner, a police officer cannot lawfully compel the arrested person who is at a hospital as a patient to provide a breath or blood specimen,” he said, adding that the prosecution has not appealed against his decision on Jan 26 to acquit Mr Rajis.

He said he was issuing detailed reasons as this case appeared to be the first time a local court had to consider parts of the RTA relating to preliminary breath tests, the requirement to provide breath or blood samples and the protection of hospital patients.

It was not disputed during Mr Rajis’ trial that he had consumed alcohol in the early hours of Oct 8, 2022.

He was driving along Jalan Toa Payoh in the direction of PIE and Tuas, when he was stopped by Traffic Police officers at a roadblock.

A breathalyser test was conducted on him seven times.

The breathalyser could not capture a reading on the first six tries because he was not blowing long or hard enough.

On the seventh attempt, the breathalyser registered a “fail” result, indicating that the proportion of alcohol in his breath exceeded the prescribed limit.

The officer conducting the test also noted that he smelt strongly of alcohol and had an unsteady gait.

Mr Rajis was arrested and taken to the TP headquarters. He collapsed as he was exiting the police car and was taken to Changi General Hospital (CGH) by an ambulance.

At CGH, a police officer asked the suspect three times to provide a blood sample, and warned Mr Rajis that failure to provide his blood sample may make him liable to imprisonment, a fine, and driving disqualification.

The prosecution had contended that the doctor implicitly “authorised” a blood sample being taken from Mr Rajis because the physician was physically present when the officer clearly and loudly made the demand and did not raise any objections.

But the judge said valid authorisation cannot be inferred through a doctor’s passive silence or mere failure to object.

The judge said Mr Rajis’ doctor appeared to have operated under the mistaken impression that the police held an absolute, independent prerogative to compel a forensic blood sample.

In the absence of evidence that the doctor was aware of his gatekeeping role or knew that he could object to a blood sample being taken, the most that could be said about the doctor’s conduct was that he had remained silent, said the judge.

The judge said: “To equate the doctor’s silence, in these circumstances, with authorisation would dilute the statutory safeguard into a mere formality.”