\n<\/p>\n
SINGAPORE \u2013 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 the police asked him to do so at a hospital.<\/p>\n
The case, in which Mr Muhammad Rajis Abdullah was charged with failing to provide a blood sample, involved a little-known provision in the Road Traffic Act (RTA).<\/p>\n
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\u2019s case gives the green light.<\/p>\n
In written grounds issued on May 18, a district judge said that because Mr Rajis was a hospital patient at the time, the police could not lawfully demand a blood specimen from him without explicit authorisation from his doctor.<\/p>\n
In other words, the burden was on the police to secure authorisation from Mr Rajis\u2019 doctor before requiring the arrested person to give a blood sample, said District Judge Prem Raj Prabakaran.<\/p>\n
The judge said the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the man\u2019s doctor had authorised the taking of a blood sample from the patient.<\/p>\n
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, he added.<\/p>\n
He noted that the provision creates a statutory safeguard that prioritises patient care and welfare over investigative or enforcement efforts.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf 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,\u201d Judge Prem Raj said, adding that the prosecution has not appealed against his decision on Jan 26 to acquit Mr Rajis.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
It was not disputed during Mr Rajis\u2019 trial that he had consumed alcohol in the early hours of Oct 8, 2022.<\/p>\n
He was driving along Jalan Toa Payoh in the direction of the PIE and Tuas, when he was stopped by Traffic Police officers at a roadblock.<\/p>\n
A breathalyser test was conducted on him seven times.<\/p>\n
The breathalyser could not capture a reading on the first six tries because he was not blowing long or hard enough.<\/p>\n
On the seventh attempt, the breathalyser registered a \u201cfail\u201d result, indicating that the proportion of alcohol in his breath exceeded the prescribed limit.<\/p>\n
The officer conducting the test also noted that Mr Rajis smelt strongly of alcohol and had an unsteady gait.<\/p>\n
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) in an ambulance.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
The prosecution had contended that the doctor implicitly \u201cauthorised\u201d 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.<\/p>\n
But Judge Prem Raj said valid authorisation cannot be inferred through a doctor\u2019s passive silence or mere failure to object.<\/p>\n
He said Mr Rajis\u2019 doctor appeared to have operated under the mistaken impression that the police held an absolute, independent prerogative to compel a forensic blood sample.<\/p>\n
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\u2019s conduct was that he had remained silent, said the judge.<\/p>\n
\u201cTo equate the doctor\u2019s silence, in these circumstances, with authorisation would dilute the statutory safeguard into a mere formality,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n