Haverfordwest woman claimed fear of police and missing custody footage supported her case

A HAVERFORDWEST woman has lost her appeal against conviction after Swansea Crown Court ruled she had no lawful excuse for refusing to provide a blood sample — despite claims she feared police abuse and that missing custody footage would support her defence.

Sally Nolan, 52, of Three Meadows, appeared at Swansea Crown Court on Thursday (Mar 27) to challenge her conviction for failing to provide a specimen for analysis following her arrest in Johnston on Aug 15, 2025.

Missing footage dispute

At the start of the hearing, Nolan — representing herself — argued that police custody footage had not been disclosed. She said the material would show she was mistreated and had offered to provide a urine sample instead of blood.

The Crown told the court no such footage was available and that custody desk recordings are typically retained for around 28 days. Prosecutors added there was no record on the custody log of any mistreatment or of Nolan offering a urine sample.

The court proceeded with what the judge described as a fresh hearing.

Police stop and roadside test

The court heard PC Dylan Davis stopped Nolan’s vehicle after receiving information it was being driven by someone suspected of being under the influence of drugs.

Body-worn video footage showed the officer activating blue lights and intercepting Nolan’s car before pulling her over.

Nolan provided a roadside saliva test, which gave a positive indication for cannabis. The court heard this was not conclusive but justified her arrest and further testing.

Refusal captured on video

Footage played in court showed Nolan repeatedly refusing to provide a blood sample after being taken to custody.

The officer read out the required legal warnings, including that failure to provide a specimen could lead to prosecution.

Nolan replied: “I’m refusing, take me to court,” and later said: “No, because I don’t trust you or the NHS.”

The court also heard she told officers: “I do not consent to anything that you will do to me,” and even refused to accept a glass of water due to concerns it could be tampered with.

Defence: PTSD and mistrust

Giving evidence, Nolan said her refusal was based on a deep mistrust of police, which she linked to previous experiences.

“I don’t trust the police,” she told the court. “You can do any test you want, but you’re not putting a needle in my arm.”

She said she would have provided a urine sample and maintained she was not under the influence of drugs.

Nolan also told the court she believed she suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, although she accepted she had no formal diagnosis.

Medical evidence rejected

A letter from her GP confirmed Nolan had not been diagnosed with PTSD, though she was experiencing anxiety and distress.

A healthcare professional present in custody told the court Nolan appeared physically well, understood the procedure, and had no medical condition that would justify refusing a blood sample.

The court heard recognised medical reasons could include conditions such as a clinically supported phobia, but no expert evidence had been provided in Nolan’s case.

Court’s ruling

Delivering judgment, the court said it accepted Nolan held genuine fears and mistrust of the authorities.

However, the judge ruled that a “reasonable excuse” must arise from a physical or mental inability to provide a specimen, or a real risk to health, and would normally require medical evidence.

The court found Nolan’s refusal was instead a willful refusal based on mistrust, which — even if genuinely held — could not amount to a lawful excuse.

The judge also rejected Nolan’s argument that she should have been offered a urine test, ruling that the law does not require police to give drivers a choice between blood and urine samples.

Refusing the appeal, the judge said: “We find that you did not have a reasonable excuse defined by law. Therefore, we refuse the appeal.”

Nolan replied: “That’s all I wanted. A fair trial.”

Sentence and finances

Magistrates had previously imposed an 18-month driving disqualification, a £300 fine, £650 in prosecution costs and a £120 surcharge.

The Crown Court then heard Nolan receives around £1,300 a month in Universal Credit, alongside ongoing household and vehicle costs.

The court confirmed that the penalty imposed at the lower court was correct. Nolan must pay £250 costs to the CPS after losing the appeal.

She was ordered to pay at £20 a month to which she told the judge: “I can’t afford that I am poor. I am very poor. I have three cats to feed, and I won’t starve my cats.”

Despite being unsuccessful in court she added: “Thank you Your Honour for a fair trail. You have been very good. Thank you, thank you.”