Is the technical test generally useful or BS? Do you want to skip it because you want him hired faster, because you're afraid of getting a roadblock to the hire you want, or because you are afraid it might offend him?
As a general rule of thumb I like making rules rules. Because if you start making exceptions for one person, then you should start making exceptions more and more until you get burned and learn why the rule exists. And trust me, a bad hire is a really painful mistake to make. But that is only true if the rule is useful. Whether this rule is useful, depends on the technical test.
Secondly, no matter how much pressure you feel under to hire, don't let that push you into making a rush decision. Haste pushes us to say yes when we shouldn't, ignore warning signs, etc. In fact the more pressure you are under, the more you need to push back on that pressure to be sure you make the right decision.
Thirdly if you have a nagging voice saying, "I'm afraid that, everything else notwithstanding, he might not pass the test" then listen to that voice - don't skip the test. This might not be the right hire.
And lastly, if the candidate is good not only will the candidate not be offended by having to take a technical test, the candidate will likely see it as a good sign about your organization. It is item 11 in the widely quoted Joel test. After all they've had the displeasure of working with developers who wouldn't have passed a technical test, and probably don't want to repeat that experience.
For all of those reasons you should give the test if (and this is an important if) the test is not an obvious piece of BS that should be replaced with a useful technical test.