1. Ms. A’s vehicle hit the rear of the vehicle in front. The police officer who arrived at the scene found Ms. A unsteady on her feet, her voice slurred, and her breath smelt of alcohol. Due to Ms. A’s condition as such, the police officer found that no screening breath test could be conducted at the scene. Ms. A was later transferred to a hospital where she was still in an apparently drunken state. A police officer then required her to provide a specimen of urine for a laboratory test. Ms. A, seeing that no female police officer was present, refused to provide the urine specimen. The police officer and the doctor at the hospital then sought Ms. A’s consent to provide a blood specimen; she again refused by saying: “I don’t trust your doctor and your equipment. How do I know if your needle is contaminated with AIDS or not? I won’t give blood to you.” Eventually no breath, urine, nor blood specimen was taken. Was Ms. A entitled to make the above refusals?
Ms. A’s refusal to provide the urine specimen is probably justified under those circumstances. But given that she was being asked to provide her blood specimen in a hospital and in the presence of a medical practitioner, her refusal to provide a blood specimen probably would not stand up as a reasonable excuse. In such circumstances, Ms. A would likely be liable for failing to provide a specimen under section 39C of the Road Traffic Ordinance (Cap.374 of the Laws of Hong Kong).
If a police officer suspects that Ms. A was under the influence of drugs (instead of drink), the police officer can require her to conduct preliminary drug test and to provide specimen of blood or urine for analysis. As in the above hypothetical scenario relating to alcohol test, Ms. A’s refusal to provide blood specimen in a drug related case would probably render her liable for failing to provide a specimen under section 39S of the Road Traffic Ordinance (Cap.374 of the Laws of Hong Kong).