PP v Muhammad Rajis bin Abdullah

Facts

In the early hours of 8 October 2022 the accused, Muhammad Rajis bin Abdullah, was stopped at a police roadblock on Jalan Toa Payoh after drinking. He failed to produce a reading on a breathalyser six times; on the seventh attempt, the officer said, the result was a fail. He was arrested and driven to Traffic Police headquarters, where he collapsed on getting out of the police car, and he was taken by ambulance to Changi General Hospital. Breath testing equipment was not available there.

At the hospital, between about 8:33am and 8:37am, a police officer three times required him to give a blood specimen for a laboratory test, warning him each time of the penalties for refusing. He did not give one. He was charged with failing without reasonable excuse to provide a blood specimen, an offence under s 70(4)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1961, and claimed trial in District Arrest Case No 909181 of 2023. The prosecution accepted that he was a hospital patient at the time, so s 71 of the Act applied: a patient may be required to give a specimen only if the doctor in immediate charge of his case authorises it. The doctor had been present for part of the officer's requests but said nothing.

Issues

1. Whether the accused had been validly arrested under s 69(5)(a) of the Road Traffic Act after a preliminary breath test.
2. What counts as authorisation by the doctor in charge of a hospital patient under s 71 of the Act, and whether it can be inferred from the doctor's presence and silence.
3. Whether the prosecution proved that the doctor authorised the requirement to give blood.

Holding

The District Judge acquitted the accused. The arrest was valid, but the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the doctor had authorised the requirement, so the officer could not lawfully demand the specimen. The prosecution did not appeal.

Reasoning

The judge accepted the roadblock officer's evidence that the seventh breath test was a fail, which was consistent with his report at the time and with the investigation officer's account, so the arrest was valid.

The case turned on s 71, which the judge described as a safeguard that puts a patient's medical care ahead of police investigation. Comparing it with the older provision it replaced, under which police could proceed unless a notified doctor objected, the judge held that the present law reverses the default. Police may not require a specimen from a patient unless the doctor gives an active, deliberate authorisation, based on a judgment that taking the specimen would not harm the patient's care. Normally that means express approval in words or writing; conduct can be enough only if it is positive and unambiguous. Silence or a failure to object is not authorisation.

Here the doctor was absent for parts of the requests and simply stayed silent for the rest. His evidence showed he believed it was for the police to obtain the patient's consent, so he did not appreciate that he had the power to refuse; a person cannot be taken to authorise something he does not know he can refuse. He had also probably not examined the accused until after the requests were made. His later evidence that he would have taken blood if the accused had agreed, and that doing so would not have worsened his condition, was hypothetical and could not replace authorisation given at the time.

From the judgment