Failing to provide a specimen of breath, blood or urine when lawfully required to do so by the police is a criminal offence, unless you have a ‘reasonable excuse’. The courts treat this as a serious matter and sentence it in the same way as drink or drug driving. In most cases this means a mandatory disqualification of at least 12 months, a fine, a community order, or, in the most serious cases, a custodial sentence.
Where the allegation is that you were only ‘in charge’ of a vehicle, the court can impose 10 penalty points or a discretionary disqualification instead.
There are two possible routes to avoiding a ban: showing that you had a ‘reasonable excuse’ for not providing the specimen, or establishing ‘special reasons’ that justify the court choosing not to impose a ban.
Our motoring team can obtain the court papers well before any hearing and give clear advice on whether either applies. If a conviction cannot be avoided, representation still makes a real difference. We prepare your case fully, reduce the stress of attending court alone, and work to secure the lowest sentence possible.
If you would like to discuss any aspect of your case, we can offer immediate advice. Please email us at [email protected] or contact us here. Alternatively, you can phone 0333 240 7373.
What is a ‘reasonable excuse’ for failing to provide a specimen?
It is a defence to show, on the ‘balance of probabilities’, that there was a ‘reasonable excuse’ for the failure to provide the specimen:
Panic attacks / anxiety – hyperventilation or acute anxiety preventing proper breathing into the machine.
Physical or medical issues – respiratory conditions such as asthma or COPD, injuries, pain, or bladder and kidney problems that make it impossible to comply with the test procedure.
Needle phobia – a recognised phobia making it impossible to provide a blood sample.
Genuine misunderstanding – where the individual did not properly understand what was required due to unclear police instructions, absence of an interpreter, or learning difficulties.
Technical or procedural fault – malfunctioning breath machine, incorrect sequence of warnings, or failure to offer an alternative specimen.
Special Reasons
Even if a person is technically guilty of the failure to provide a specimen offence, the court may find ‘special reasons’ not to impose a driving ban or penalty points. These must be extenuating circumstances directly connected to the offence, which would make it unfair to impose the usual penalty. These examples could amount to special reasons:
- Not the driver or no intention of driving: for example, a passenger asked to provide a specimen, or planning to drive later when sober
- Not over the drink-drive limit: for example, where someone refused because they believed that, being sober, a specimen was not required or the request was unreasonable
- Reasonable belief about refusing the request: for instance, confusion about medical advice or a misunderstanding of police instructions
- Acute distress or shock at the time: for example, a recent traumatic or highly distressing incident that caused panic or impaired judgment
How Our Motoring Law Specialists Can Help
Having represented many people accused of failing to provide a specimen, our motoring team has a detailed grasp of the evidential thresholds involved in challenging the allegation. Expert legal advice is important, as an ill-judged not guilty plea can create avoidable cost and delay and may result in a more severe sentence. At the same time, because the loss of a licence is so damaging, most people understandably want to avoid a ban wherever possible.
Where a guilty plea is in your best interests, we are meticulous in preparing the case for court, obtaining supporting letters, references and any other material that may assist in reducing the sentence.
We also have a strong track record of persuading prosecutors to amend the charge to the less serious ‘in charge’ offence where the evidence supports that approach. This can make a significant difference, avoiding a mandatory disqualification altogether.
Get Immediate Legal Advice on Specimen Offences
If you are facing an allegation of failing to provide a specimen, contact our motoring law specialists today for clear, confidential advice. Email [email protected] or call 0333 240 7373. or contact via our online form.
Failure to provide a specimen after suspicion of drink or drug driving
The Magistrates will place your case within one of three categories in the sentencing guidelines. As a general guide:
Serious impairment and deliberate refusal to provide: 12 weeks’ custody / disqualification between 29–36 months.
Deliberate refusal or evidence of impairment: Community order (unpaid work or curfew) / disqualification between 17–28 months.
Less serious cases – a fine / disqualification between 12–16 months.
The sentence can move up or down from the starting point depending on aggravating or mitigating factors. Aggravating features include previous drink or drug driving convictions, poor driving, an accident, obstructive behaviour towards police, or carrying passengers. Mitigation includes no relevant convictions, positive character, community contribution, and medical or mental health issues affecting ability or judgment.
If there is a previous drink or drug driving conviction within the last ten years, the minimum disqualification rises to three years.
Failure to provide a specimen after suspicion of being ‘in charge’ of a vehicle:
High level of impairment and deliberate refusal to provide: Community order / disqualification between 6–12 months or 10 penalty points.
High level of impairment or deliberate refusal to provide: Fine / disqualification up to 6 months or 10 penalty points.
No serious factors: Fine / 10 penalty points.
Short custodial sentences (up to 6 weeks) are reserved for cases involving serious aggravating factors, such as a high risk of impaired driving, being in charge of a goods vehicle, or having relevant previous convictions.
With over 20 offices, including in London, Oxford, Reading, Bristol, Cardiff and Manchester, as well as a wider network of regional locations, we are able to assist clients across England and Wales.
We can offer appointments in person or remotely via MS Teams, depending on your preference.
True expertise comes with understanding the evolving body of case law, alongside statute law.
DPP v Crofton [1994] RTR 279
The Defendant in this case put forward that he was unable to provide a breath specimen due to a medical condition. The court held that to rely on a ‘reasonable excuse’ there must be credible evidence of a physical or mental condition and a link between the condition and the failure. And there must be disclosure of the issue at the time. This case underlines the importance of preparation and obtaining quality expert evidence.
DPP v Furby [2000] RTR 181
The defendant pleaded not guilty to failure to provide a blood specimen on the basis of a fear of needles. The court stated that a ‘reasonable excuse’ must have a direct connection with the failure to provide and that the defendant must show genuine effort or inability to provide the sample. General anxiety or dislike was not enough.
This case is useful when reviewing case papers because it highlights what the court expects to see. If there are gaps or apparent weaknesses in the evidence – for example, where a client has not demonstrated effort or disclosed an issue at the time – we know to identify this early and explore whether there is an explanation or supporting material that can properly address it.
Get in touch
Information is processed inline with UK GDPR and our Privacy Policy
FAQ
It is an offence to fail, without reasonable excuse, to provide a specimen of breath, blood or urine for analysis when lawfully required to do so by a police officer (under section 7(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988). The officer must explain the requirement and warn that failing to comply is a criminal offence.
The officer determines which specimen of breath, blood or urine is required under section 7(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. It is not open to the driver to choose, and refusing the specimen lawfully requested constitutes an offence.
If you have a previous conviction for drink or drug driving within the past ten years, the court must impose a minimum disqualification of three years.
Yes, the police only need reasonable suspicion of an offence of drink driving or drunk in charge. As long as this ground is met, whether you actually were over the limit is irrelevant. However, it could amount to a ‘special reason’ to avoid a ban or penalty points.
Yes, a person commits the offence of failing to provide a specimen if the request was made lawfully by the officer, regardless of whether they were driving. This situation often arises when the police attend an incident and it is unclear who had been driving or who was in charge of the vehicle. If you had not been driving, this could amount to a ‘special reason’, which may avoid a ban or penalty points.
If the police allege you were “in charge” rather than actually driving, the case is treated less seriously. The court can impose 10 penalty points or a discretionary disqualification instead of a mandatory driving ban.
A conviction for failing to provide a specimen stays on your driving record for either 11 years or 4 years, depending on the specific offence. If the conviction relates to driving or attempting to drive and failing to provide a specimen, it will carry the endorsement code DR30, which remains on your record for 11 years from the date of conviction. If the conviction relates to being in charge of a vehicle and failing to provide a specimen, it will carry the endorsement code DR60, which remains on your record for 4 years.
Yes, this is available in alcohol related matters (but not drugs). If you complete the course successfully, the disqualification can be reduced by up to 25%.