Supplementary written evidence from the
Ministry of Defence |
1. This Memorandum is in response to questions
raised by Thomas Docherty MP during oral evidence taken before
the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill on 3 February 2011.
The questions were in relation to the differences between Road
Traffic legislation and the Armed Forces Bill regarding the quantity
of samples required (set out in sec 93E (5) (c ) and 93 (6) (b));
and the requirement to obtain a specimen of urine within one hour
of the requirement for its provision being made.
2. This requirement was requested in para 21.32
and 21.33 of the initial instructions to counsel. Para 21.32 of
the instructions dealt with the admissibility of a sample of blood
or urine requiring the sample obtained to be one of two parts
which was to be divided at the time it was provided and the other
part was to be made available to the person to arrange his own
analysis. Para 21.33 dealt with the requirement for a specimen
of sufficient quantity for two samples. These instructions reflect
the position set out in the provisions of the Road Traffic Offenders
Therefore the provisions set out in 93E(5)(c) 93E(6)(b) requiring
a specimen to be of sufficient quantity to divide into two parts
for analysis is required to tie in with the provisions of the
Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
3. It is clear that there are two issues here:
the admissibility of the samples; and the procedure for obtaining
4. Parliamentary Counsel advised that the appropriate
place for provisions relating to admissibility of evidence is
in rules made under section 163(2)(d), 153(2)(b) and 288(2)(d)
of AFA 06.
However she acknowledged that for the process to work properly,
it must be the case that the sample is large enough to divide
into 2 parts and the accused is given part of the sample on request;
therefore, these issues are dealt with in sections 93E(5)(c) 93E(6)(b)
The admissibility of evidence will be dealt with in later rules.
5. Therefore the provisions relating to specimens
being of a quantity to enable them to be divided into two parts
for analysis is required to reflect the provisions of the Road
Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
6. This requirement, as set out in Section 93E(6)
is exactly the same wording as is contained in Section 7(5) Road
Traffic Act 1988.
15 February 2011
58 Section 15(5) Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 Back
Para 37 of letter PC to CLS dated 11 Sep 10. Back
Para 19 of letter PC to CLS dated 4 Oct 10. Back