Appeal under section 74 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995:-The appellants were indicted to Paisley Sheriff Court in relation to a number of charges including an allegation that they, as airline pilots, at Glasgow Airport performed an activity ancillary to an aviation function at a time when the proportion of alcohol in their blood was in excess of the prescribed limit set out in Section 93(2) of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 contrary to section 93(1) of the 2003 Act. In relation to such offences, in terms of section 96(1) of the 2003 Act, the provisions of section 15 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act apply in relation to to the taking and use of specimens in relevant proceedings. A preliminary issue was lodged by the appellants objecting to the admissibility of evidence relating to blood samples taken from them. The circumstances were that following the giving of positive breath samples the appellants were both arrested and arrangements made for them to provide specimens of blood. In each case the specimen was divided in two parts, marked “A” and “B”. In each case the appellant asked to be supplied with one part and in each case they selected the phial marked “B” and in each case that phial was placed within the appellant’s property held by the police. On 19 July 2016 the appellants were remanded in custody and transferred to HMP Low Moss where the appellants’ property was seized and placed in sealed bags. The property included the phials containing the appellants “B” blood samples. On 26 July the appellants were fully committed and released on bail. At that time the phials “B” were not in the property returned to either of them. It transpired that the phials of the appellants “B” samples were destroyed under the instruction of the security manager at HMP Low Moss. From 19 July 2016 efforts were made by the solicitors acting for the appellants to obtain the “B” samples for independent testing, however, were subsequently advised that the samples had been destroyed. Section 15(5) of the 1988 Act provides:- “Where, at the time a specimen of blood or urine was provided by the accused, he asked to be provided with such a specimen, evidence of the proportion of alcohol or any drug found in the specimen is not admissible on behalf of the prosecution unless— (a) the specimen in which the alcohol or drug was found is one of two parts into which the specimen provided by the accused was divided at the time it was provided, and (b) the other part was supplied to the accused.” Before the sheriff it was contended that the terms of section 15(5) had not been complied with in that there had not been effective supply in that the sample had to be supplied in circumstances which reasonably allowed for the statutory purpose, namely for an accused to obtain independent analysis of the part specimen to be fulfilled. The sheriff considered that the placing of the specimens within their property constituted supply and there had been a supply for the purposes of section 15(5) and that the evidence relating to sample “A” was admissible. The appellants appealed against that decision. Here the court allowed the appeal. The court considered that the sheriff had failed to adequately take into account the circumstances, in particular, the sheriff failed to take into account the appellants’ lack of effective control over their samples and did not give sufficient consideration to the purpose of section 15(5). The court observed that whilst the sheriff had referred to a number of cases the question of whether there has been supply for the purpose of the section is one which depends on the circumstances of each case and comparing cases, with different facts, to the present was difficult. The court considered that the critical issue was whether there had been “effective” supply so that the supply would have enabled the purpose of the section to be achieved. The court noted that whilst the Crown, on one hand, accepted that there had to be such effective supply, however, on the other, in the particular circumstances of the case considered that the indirect supply outwith the control of the appellants was sufficient for the purpose of section 15(5). In holding that in the particular circumstances of the present case there was no effective supply of the “B” blood samples to the appellants the court considered that the sheriff erred in repelling the objection to the admissibility of evidence and remitted the case to the sheriff with a direction that the objection to the admissibility of the “A” samples of the appellant’s blood be sustained.