A 41-YEAR-OLD new mum from the Cotswolds who was banned from driving for refusing to provide a urine specimen to police is back on the road after winning an appeal.

Donna Davison of Buttercup Close, Moreton-in-Marsh, had her 12-month driving ban overturned by Recorder Llewelyn Sellick at Gloucester Crown Court.

She won her appeal against conviction for the offence on a procedural technicality.

Miss Davison, whose 10-week-old baby was in her car at the time of the alleged offence, was seen by police in Priors Road, Cheltenham at midnight on August 11, 2017, the court heard.

A number plate light on her Audi A3 was defective, causing PC Peter Stone to stop the vehicle and carry out a number of checks, which also revealed that the tread on one of the tyres was below the legal level.

Said PC Stone in evidence: “I illuminated the blue lights and the vehicle stopped.

“I then asked Miss Davison to take a roadside breath test which read negative. I then asked her to take a saliva swab test which came back positive for cocaine.

“I arrested her and took her to the custody suite at Waterwells Police Headquarters in Gloucester.”

PC Stone told the court that he conducted a Field Impairment Test (FIT) which indicated that the appellant was impaired.

FIT tests involve questions and physical and mental exercises.

“I requested a blood test but she refused, stating that she had a phobia of needles,” said the officer.

“But I noticed that she had three body piercings and for some piercings needles are used.”

The policeman said he then gave Miss Davison the opportunity of giving a urine sample for analysis but again she refused.

Miss Davison was subsequently charged with refusing to provide a sample of urine and she was convicted by Cheltenham Magistrates in January.

The appellant’s lawyer Tim Burrows said: “There was nothing in my client’s demeanour or in the manner of her driving to suggest that she was unfit to drive.

“The officer did not arrest her for being unfit to drive as there was no evidence that her driving was impaired.”

Mr Burrows said that PC Stone offered the appellant a blood test which she refused but he then switched to offering her a urine test.

“A medical professional should have been called to verify whether or not there was a good reason why my client should not give a blood sample,” said Mr Burrows.

“This did not happen and she should then have been charged with failing to provide a specimen of blood. She should not have been offered the urine test.”

Miss Davison took the witness stand and said: “I have a phobia of needles and did not want to take the urine test because I was having my period and would have felt violated.”

Miss Davison said that it was very late at night and all she wanted to do was to get back to her baby.

“I was breast-feeding at the time,” she told the court.

Recorder Llewelyn Sellick said: “Mr Burrows says that once the officer decided to offer a blood test he should stick to that and Mr Burrows is right.

“The officer should have charged Miss Davison at that point with failing to provide a specimen of blood and he did not have the right to switch to urine.”