Since the offence of drug driving was introduced in March 2015, we have dealt with enquiries from people who have been arrested for and charged with it on a daily basis. Some are sceptical about the prospects of successfully defending the charges against them and believe that the case against them is cut and dried. The reality is that this rarely the case, there is almost always an opportunity to avoid conviction and it is up to you and us as your legal representatives to take it. We have set out below some real-life case studies involving clients who have recently avoided conviction for drug driving charges.
If you are interested in fighting the charges you may be facing, please call or leave a contact form and we will come back to you as soon as we can.
Mr Sharpe – Driving above limit for THC [CASE DISCONTINUED – OCT 2018]
Mr Sharpe was charged with being above the prescribed limit for cannabis. When he entered a not guilty plea to the charge in July 2018 the case was listed for trial to take place in November 2018. Th prosecution did not serve a full forensic report or the material upon which the forensic findings were based. When the case came before the Court for a preliminary hearing on 9th October, further directions were issued which again the prosecution failed to comply with. A week before the trial the prosecution discontinued the case against our client.
Mr Allan – Driving above limit for THC [ACQUITTED – MAY 2019]
Mr Allan was charged with an offence of drug driving and instructed us to represent him on the basis of a not guilty plea. He entered a not guilty plea in November when our Mr Miller represented him and the case was listed for trial at the end of January. The issue raised on his behalf was whether the blood analysis was reliable. There was insufficient time for the case to be heard in January and the matter was then fixed trial to take place on 14th May 2019. Counsel attended on that date when it transpired that the videolink arrangement for the prosecution’s expert witness had not been set up following the adjournment of the trial on the last occasion. The prosecution applied for an adjournment which was refused and as a result no evidence was offered against Mr Allan.
Miss Hughes – Driving above limit for cocaine [ACQUITTED – APR 2019]
Miss Hughes instructed us to defend her in relation to a charge of drug driving. Her instructions to us revealed that the nurse who attended to obtain a sample of blood from her was unable to do so initially, she was then taken to a cell before then suggesting that the sample should be taken from her hand. A number of issues were raised as part of her defence. The MGDD/B booklet showed that the procedure was stopped when the nurse had been unable to take the sample from her arm. The police had treated it as a “failure to provide” but then obtained the sample from her hand without restarting it or administering a warning of liability to prosecution. The trial was adjourned from its original date in October 2018 due to the prosecution’s failure to serve its SFR/2 and analytical data pack in a timely manner. It was then moved to 22nd March before being vacated and re-fixed to 1st April 2019. Expert reports were obtained in relation to the reliability of the analysis of the blood sample and Miss Hughes’ mental state whilst in custody and how this impacted upon her ability to give consent to the taking of the blood sample. After all the evidence was heard at the trial on 1st April 2019, the Court found that the failure to administer a warning of liability to prosecution before the sample was obtained from Miss Hughes’s arm was fatal to the prosecution case and it was therefore dismissed.
Miss Kay – Drug driving & possession of cannabis [APPEALED AGAINST CONVICTION – MAR 2019]
Miss Kay instructed us to defend her after being charged with drug driving and possession of cannabis. She entered a not guilty plea and after numerous hearings the case was listed for trial. She was convicted against the weight of the evidence which showed that the procedure for obtaining blood was not followed correctly. In particular there was no evidence from the nurse who obtained the sample and both police officers could not confirm whether more than one sample was drawn from Miss Kay’s arm. In spite of this the District Judge convicted Miss Kerr and made a finding of fact which in our view was not open for him to make. An appeal against conviction was lodged and heard in March 2019. After hearing all the prosecution evidence, the Crown Court rightly allowed the appeal against the drug driving conviction.
Mr Hall – Driving whilst above limit for cocaine [CASE DISCONTINUED – APR 2019]
Mr Hall instructed us after a warrant had been issued for his arrest following his non-appearance at Court in relation to a drug driving charge. We arranged for him to attend Court to answer the warrant with a representative. He entered a not guilty plea on that date on the basis that the procedure for obtaining a sample from him at the hospital was taken issue with due to his mental state being impaired and the reliability of the analysis was not accepted. The case was adjourned for a CMH and then listed for trial on 30th November 2019. The prosecution served an expert report and the analytical data pack which was forwarded to our expert who produced a report casting doubt on its reliability and requesting further information. The prosecution discontinued the day before the trial due to the laboratory’s method of analysis being fundamentally flawed – as a result of this the forensic regulator has been informed.
Mr Wilson – Driving above limit for THC [CASE DISCONTINUED – FEB 2019]
This matter concerned a Defendant with severe learning difficulties, ADHD and autism. The nature of Mr Wilson’s defence was based on the fact that even though he had provided a sample of blood which had been found to be over the limit, the analysis should not be admitted due to his lack of understanding of the procedure and inability to provide valid consent particularly as he had been wrongfully denied an appropriate adult whilst in custody. After an expert psychologist’s report had been obtained and served on the prosecution and the Court, the District Judge insisted upon a skeleton argument being prepared within four working days so that the legal basis for our application to exclude the analysis was made clear. After the skeleton argument and accompanying case law had been served the prosecution then discontinued the case. The case was discontinued within eight weeks of the first hearing and prior to a trial having been listed. It was conducted with exceptional skill and dispatch by our Mr Miller which resulted in the swiftest resolution possible.
Mr Langley – Driving above limit for THC [ACQUITTED – MAY 2019]
Mr Langley was charged with drug driving after having been stopped by a PCSO near his son’s house. The Police Community Support Officer stated that he had stopped “to ask for directions” which was plainly untrue. The nurse who obtained the blood sample did not advise the police that he may have been suffering from the effect of drugs. The nurse also did not divide the sample of blood as required. An expert report was obtained with a view to disputing the analytical result which cast some doubt on the findings of the prosecution expert due to some material not being disclosed. At the trial the case was dismissed after Court upheld counsel Mr Phillip Lucas’s submission of no case to answer at the close of the prosecution case. This was primarily on the basis that the sample of blood was not divided as required by s15 (5) Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
Mr Sykes – Driving above limit for THC & cocaine [ACQUITTED – JUL 2019]
Mr Sykes instructed us after he had been charged with driving in excess of the limit for benzoylecgonine and cannabis. He instructed us to defend the charge on the basis that he did not accept the results of the analysis were reliable. The trial date was originally listed for 7th May 2019 at Stockport Magistrates’ Court but was re-listed at a hearing in March due to lack of Court time. A few weeks before the trial was due to take place at Manchester Magistrates’ Court on 3rd July 2019 the Court again proposed that the trial was adjourned due to lack of availability of Court legal advisers. We objected to this due to the history of the matter and the previous adjournment and the Court agreed that it would remain on 3rd July 2019. We had repeatedly requested the full analytical data pack from the prosecution but only part of it had been served as the batch results sheet was not disclosed. At the trial the Court agreed that there had been a failure by the prosecution to comply with Part 19.3 (3) (d) Criminal Procedure Rules. Leave to rely on expert evidence was refused by the Court following preliminary legal argument which resulted in the prosecution offering no evidence and the case being dismissed.
Mr Kennedy – Driving above the limit for THC [CASE DISCONTINUED – OCT 2019]
Mr Kennedy was charged with drug driving and assaulting an emergency worker. He instructed us to defend the charge and entered not guilty pleas at the first hearing of the case in September 2019 and elected summary trial when represented by our Mr Miller. The case was listed for a Case Management Hearing to take place on 30th October 2019. There were numerous difficulties faced by the prosecution as there was no evidence of Mr Kennedy having driven any vehicle and the evidence suggested that his ability to understand or consent to the blood sample procedure was significantly impaired. Requests were made for full disclosure following which the prosecution discontinued the case shortly before the Case Management Hearing was due to take place.
Mr Bayford – Drug driving charge [CASE DISCONTINUED – NOV 2019]
Mr Bayford was charged with drug driving. The arresting officer did not administer a roadside drug swab and therefore it was unclear whether the arrest and subsequent blood specimen procedure were lawful. A not guilty plea was entered on his behalf, with issues raised in relation to the procedure and subsequent blood analysis. following which there was a further Case Management Hearing when the trial was listed for 30th August 2019. A few weeks before the trial the prosecution applied to vacate due to a technical issue which occurred at the laboratory which analysed the sample that prevented them from providing the data pack connected to the analysis. Around a week and a half before the trial the case was discontinued by the prosecution due to the fact that the technical issue had still not been resolved.
Mr Stanley – Driving above the prescribed limit for cannabis [CASE DISMISSED – JAN 2020]
Mr Stanley instructed us to defend the charge of driving above the prescribed limit for cannabis. Our Mr Miller attended the first hearing with him in October 2019, when he entered a not guilty plea, a trial was fixed for 10th January 2010 and the District Judge made a number of directions regarding disclosure of expert evidence and associated material. In spite of numerous reminders being sent by us the prosecution did not comply with these directions and eventually requested a postponement of the trial to provide a further opportunity to do so. This application was opposed by us and was listed for 6th January 2020. After hearing from our Mr Miller the District Judge refused. The prosecution offered no evidence as a result of its application being refused.
R v SC Chelmsford Magistrates’ Court [CASE DISCONTINUED – FEB 2020]
A challenge was mounted to the legitimacy of the roadside and police station procedure for obtaining the blood sample from Mr Cole and with the reliability of the blood analysis upon which the charge was based. After the forensic material relating to the blood sample was received it transpired that the sample had originally been received at Key Forensic before being transported to Cellmark who then performed the analysis. When Cellmark received the sample, the tamper evident bag had been opened leading to questions about what had happened to the sample in the intervening period and the integrity of the sample’s condition generally. We obtained and served an expert report setting out these concerns. The prosecution then discontinued the case against Mr Cole.
R v DA High Wycombe Magistrates’ Court [CASE DISMISSED – JUN 2020]
After the material upon which the analysis in relation to this matter was based had been served on us, the expert witness instructed by us identified a number of flaws in relation to the manner in which the analysis had been calculated. We served a report relating to these issues from our expert and a meeting took place between the two experts before the trial. At the trial both experts gave evidence and the Court held that there was doubt in relation to the reliability of the analysis. The case against was therefore dismissed.
R v CA Brighton Magistrates’ Court [CASE DISMISSED – OCT 2020]
Before the trial of this matter which took place in October 2020, we served a report from a forensic expert witness which confirmed that numerous items relating to the analysis had not been provided in spite of having been requested by us under Part 19.3 (3) (d) Criminal Procedure Rules. There were a number of Case management hearings when the issue of the outstanding material was raised however the said material was not provided by the date of the trial. On that date the prosecution was denied leave to rely on expert evidence due to its failures to comply with the Rules. The case was dismissed as a result.
R v CH Bexley Magistrates’ Court [CASE DISCONTINUED – NOV 2020]
Following his arrest, Mr H had sent the part of the specimen provided to him by the police to an independent forensic toxicologist. The conclusion of the independent forensic toxicologist was there was an insufficient volume of blood for the specimen to be analysed and he prepared a report to this effect.. Numerous further attempts were made to explain to the CPS that there case was not sustainable and upon receipt of a schedule of unused material we served a Defence Statement. Around a week before the trial had been due to take place, the CPS eventually discontinued the case.
R v JH Mold Magistrates’ Court [CASE DISCONTINUED – DEC 2020]
A number of issues were raised on the Defendant’s behalf in relation to this matter including the impact that mental health issues had on her ability to understand the procedure for taking blood and provide valid consent to the taking of the specimen. The analysis of her specimen was outsourced to a different laboratory which had lost its accreditation. Shortly before the trial, the prosecution applied to vacate due to the fact that neither of its two expert evidence were able to attend the date it was originally listed for. This was successfully opposed by us at a hearing the day before the trial had been due to take place. Later that day the prosecution discontinued the case.
R v SR Maidstone Magistrates’ Court [DEC 2020]
We challenged the validity of the procedure for obtaining the blood specimen from Mr R together with the reliability of the analysis. On the day of the trial, counsel instructed by us applied successfully for the analysis of the specimen to be excluded on the basis that the prosecution had not complied with the Rules in respect of expert evidence. The prosecution then offered no evidence and the charge of driving in excess of the limit for THC was dismissed. The Court also found special reasons not to endorse Mr Singh’s licence in relation to the charge of driving without insurance
R v DK Preston Magistrates’ Court [FEB 2021]
This matter was delayed on several occasions due to the pandemic, the trial having initially been listed for May 2020. After this had been postponed, the case was eventually listed for a Case Management Hearing which our Mr Miller attended. The Court re-fixed the trial for 19th February 2021 and directed that we were to serve a skeleton argument expanding upon the issues raised which we did on 14th January 2021. Phillip Lucas of counsel was instructed to represent Mr Kirby at the trial on 19th February. At the trial, the arresting officer’s evidence suggested that the procedure for taking blood from Mr Kirby was flawed in numerous fundamental ways. The trial was stopped before the close of the prosecution case and the prosecution asked to consider its position following this evidence. The prosecution then agreed to offer no evidence and the charge was dismissed.
R v LT Llandudno Magistrates’ Court [MAR 2021]
After material had been served by CPS, it became apparent that Mr Tandy’s blood specimen had been analysed by a laboratory which had recently lost its UKAS accreditation to analyse specimens for the purposes of s5A RTA 1988 . The prosecution served the analytical data pack relating to the flawed analysis and we served an expert report pointing out that there were numerous items outstanding and the fact that the analysis could not be safely relied upon. Our Mr Miller attended Court for the trial with Mr Tandy on 4th March 2021, when the prosecution applied for an adjournment. This application was refused resulting in no evidence being offered and the case being dismissed.
R v RW Huntingdon Magistrates’ Court [APR 2021]
Mr W was involved in an accident for which he was not responsible, following which he was arrested and subsequently charged with driving whilst over the prescribed limit. The prosecution eventually served its forensic expert report dated 29th December 2020 on 24th March 2020 which was significantly later than directed by the Court. Following our receipt of the report we wrote to the prosecution setting out the basis for our objection to the admission of this report and also reminding them of the other issues in the case and our witness requirements. The prosecution discontinued the case a week before the trial had been due to take place.
R v MT St Albans Magistrates’ Court [MAY 2021]
Mr T instructed us to represent him in relation to a charge of driving in excess of the limit for THC. He pleaded not guilty to the charge following which it became apparent that the laboratory where the sample was analysed had lost its accreditation to perform blood sample analyses under s5a RTA 1988. A few weeks before the trial, the prosecution applied for it to be postponed in order that they could have the specimen re-analysed. This application was refused by the Court. The prosecution did not formally discontinue the case therefore counsel was instructed to represent Mr Tahir at the trial. After discussions between counsel and the prosecution before the trial was due to start, no evidence was offered and the case was therefore dismissed.
R v RD Blackpool Magistrates’ Court [JUN 2021]
Mr Dl instructed us after he had been charged with being in charge of a vehicle whilst above the prescribed limit for cocaine and benzoylecgonine. Upon review of the material initially served by the prosecution it became apparent that there was insufficient evidence of him being in charge of the vehicle as opposed to merely sitting in the car when he was apprehended by the police. Issue was taken with this aspect of the case as well as the procedure for obtaining blood from him and the reliability of the analysis. On the day of the trial, the Crown’s forensic expert was unavailable and the prosecutor accepted that he had numerous other evidential difficulties. He applied for an adjournment which was refused by the Court. No evidence was therefore offered and the case was therefore dismissed.
R v SJ Llandudno Magistrates’ Court [JUL 2021 drug driving x 2]
It became apparent that the analysis of the blood specimen in this matter had been outsourced by Key Forensics to Synlab who had recently lost its accreditation to perform analyses for s5a RTA cases due to issues that had been identified with its methods. In the intervening period Mr Jones was charged with a further offence of driving in excess of the limit. The first case was discontinued on the last working day before the trial leaving the other later matter still listed for trial on that date.
Our expert gave evidence that in his view the analysis should not be relied upon due to the lack of evidence relating to continuity of handling of the specimen and the fact that the specimen’s outer bag had been sealed with duct tape suggesting that it had been opened by a third party before being sent back to the original laboratory. At the conclusion of the trial, the Magistrates’ dismissed the remaining case on that basis.
R v IS Liverpool Magistrates’ Court [AUG 2021]
This case was subject to three hearings, the first hearing in March 2021 and Case Management Hearing in July 2021 which were attended by our Mr Miller and the trial in August at which IS was represented by counsel Mr Phillip Lucas. At the trial, it was that there was insufficient evidence of the analysis since the prosecution’s expert did not have control or supervision of the analysis and none of the analysts who carried out work on the specimen gave evidence or provided statements. This submission was upheld by the Court and the case was dismissed.
R v LK Norwich Magistrates’ Court [SEP 2021]
Counsel Phillip Lucas was instructed for the trial of this matter. Following legal argument, the Court held that the prosecution had failed to comply with the rules in respect of expert evidence as it had not provided the material which we had requested following service of the prosecution’s expert report. The Court refused to allow the prosecution to rely on expert evidence and as a result no evidence was offered.
R v TL Cannock Magistrates’ Court [CASE DISCONTINUED – OCT 2021]
The prosecution applied to amend the charge outside the statutory time limit of 6 months so that it alleged driving whilst over the limit as opposed to being in charge whilst unfit.
The prosecution served a copy of the new charge but it was fundamentally flawed as it failed to identify the new offence correctly. The Court refused to allow the prosecution to introduce the new charge due to its failure to serve it within a reasonable time. This left the prosecution with the old charge in relation to which the Defendant was not guilty as there was no evidence of him being unfit through drugs.
The prosecution discontinued the trial on the morning of trial by which time our Mr Miller was already present in Court.
R v BW Wimbledon Magistrates’ Court
After this client had instructed us to defend him, it became apparent from the evidence served and his instructions to us that multiple specimens of blood had been obtained in this case contrary to the procedure laid down in law. The statement of the healthcare professional who obtained blood referred to two specimens as having been obtained, the first was 2mls in volume and the second, which was subsequently divided, 3mls. As per Beck v Watson 1980 RTR 90 the police have the power to draw only one specimen of blood. If the first specimen was capable of analysis by ordinary methods, the analysis of any subsequent specimen would be inadmissible. This was pointed out repeatedly to the prosecution ahead of the trial who insisted on proceeding with the case. On the day of the trial, the prosecution had numerous witness difficulties. They applied to adjourn the trial which was refused and as a result they offered no evidence.
R v Franklin Cambridge Magistrates’ Court [CASE DISCONTINUED – APR 2022]
We were instructed to represent Mr Franklin after he had been charged with failure to provide a blood specimen for analysis without reasonable excuse . He had informed the police that he had a needle phobia and at no stage was a medical professional called to examine him. The law states that where a reason is identified that may amount to a medical reason, a medical professional is then required to decide whether it amounts to a reasonable excuse to not give blood. He entered a not guilty plea following which the case was listed for trial. We instructed an expert witness who reviewed the material served together with Mr Franklin’s medical records as well as having a consultation with him. Her report concluded that the needle phobia was genuine, it was referred to at various times in his medical records and may have prevented him from being able to provide a specimen. This report was served on the prosecution who then discontinued the case before trial.
R v Williams Teesside Magistrates’ Court [CASE DISMISSED – JUN 2022]
On the day of the trial of this matter, the barrister instructed by us raised an issue with the lateness of disclosure of the batch results sheet and the prosecutor’s failure to serve a complete schedule of unused material. The prosecutor an adjournment so that a further bundle containing all the items listed on the schedule could be served. The prosecutor asked for further time within which to do so which was opposed by us and refused by the District Judge who heard the case. As a result no evidence was offered and the case was dismissed.
R v Jackson Chelmsford Magistrates’ Court [CASE DISMISSED – JUL 2022]
We were instructed on behalf of Mr Jackson who had previously been represented by another firm of solicitors.
Our expert report highlighted the fact that the prosecution’s expert had removed one of the calibration points within the calibration curve for no justifiable reason. It also referred to the fact that we have not been served with the full batch results sheet or the non-manually integrated chromatograms. Repeated requests were made for the outstanding data which did not receive any response.
The prosecutor applied for an adjournment due to its failure to comply with the Criminal Procedure Rules in respect of expert evidence which was refused by the Court. As a result no evidence was offered and the case was dismissed.
R v- Bennett – Margate Magistrates’ Court [CASE DISMISSED – SEP 2022]
The issues raised included the validity of the evidential procedure and the reliability of the analytical result. The prosecution were late in serving their forensic evidence and the analytical data pack provided was incomplete.
On the day of the trial, the prosecution applied for its expert witness to attend remotely. This application was opposed by counsel instructed by us and refused by the Court. The prosecution then applied for an adjournment of the trial which was also opposed then refused. The prosecutor then instructed its expert witness to attend Court in person. However the Court refused to allow more time to enable the prosecution to call more evidence. Counsel then made a submission of no case to answer which was granted by the Court resulting in the case being dismissed.
R v Beard – Basingstoke Magistrates’ Court [CASE DISMISSED – OCT 2022]
Mr Beard instructed us after he had been charged with driving in excess of the limit for benzoylecgonine – the breakdown product of cocaine. He pleaded not guilty on the basis of a challenge to the validity of the evidential procedure as well as the reliability of the analysis. The prosecution served its expert report and analytical data pack which was forwarded to our expert who highlighted a number of issues which could have impacted upon the reliability of the analysis. A few weeks before the trial the prosecution discontinued the charge due to its laboratory losing the necessary accreditation to carry out analyses in support of prosecutions under s5a Road Traffic Act 1988.
R v Casey – Kidderminster Magistrates’ Court [CASE DISMISSED – NOV 2022]
After Mr Casey entered his plea to the charge, the case was adjourned on several occasions to enable expert evidence to be served before the trial. There were 7 hearings in total at which attendance was required including the trial at which counsel Phillip Lucas was instructed to represent Mr Casey. Numerous requests were made before the hearing for the full batch results sheet which was not disclosed at any time ahead of the trial. At the trial Mr Casey’s barrister submitted on Mr Casey’s behalf that there had been a breach of Part 19.3 (3) (d) of the Criminal Procedure Rules as a result of which the prosecution’s forensic evidence should not be admitted. The Judge ruled in Mr Casey’s favour as it stated that there had been a breach of the Rules as a result of which the prosecution’s expert evidence was inadmissible. The prosecution requested an adjournment of the trial on 29th November 2022 which was attended by our Mr Miller. This was refused on the basis that the Court had already ruled that the forensic evidence was inadmissible. As a result of this the prosecution offered no evidence and the case was dismissed
R v Singh – Swindon Magistrates’ Court [CASE DISCONTINUED – DEC 2022]
This was an unusual case as a blood specimen had been obtained from Mr Singh and was found to be below the legal limit. Despite this, the police decided to charge him with driving whilst unfit through drugs.
There were numerous Case Management Hearings, one of which was attended by counsel instructed by us and the others by our Mr Miller remotely.
The prosecution case was based on the analysis and admissions by Mr Singer during his interview some months after the alleged offence. Our expert witness Professor Atholl Johnston concluded that the reported analysis was inconsistent with the amount Mr Singer says he took in interview and that the level of the drug in his system would probably not have had much effect on him. In addition, the hospital blood procedure was carried out incorrectly as the police used the incorrect form.
The prosecution applied to adjourn the trial due to the prosecution expert not being available on the date fixed. This application was opposed by us but was not adjudicated upon by the Court as expected. There were numerous chaser emails sent by our Mr Miller which eventually resulted in the case being listed in Court before the District Judge. The prosecution’s application was refused resulting in the case being discontinued.
R v Clark Birmingham Magistrates’ Court [CASE DISMISSED – JAN 2023]
Mr Clark instructed us after he had been charged with driving in excess of the limit for THC, The validity of the evidential procedure for obtaining blood and the reliability of the analysis of the blood specimen obtained by the police were challenged. In between the Case Management Hearing and the trial, numerous items of correspondence were sent by us to the prosecution reiterating the issues in the case. In spite of this, the prosecution did not serve its expert report until two days before the trial.
At the trial, when Mr Clark was represented by counsel Phillip Lucas, the prosecution accepted that they were not in a position to proceed with the case due to the lateness of service of its expert report. The prosecution applied for adjournment which was opposed by Mr Lucas and refused by the District Judge. As a result no evidence was offered and the case was dismissed.
R v Lewis Manchester Magistrates’ Court [CASE DISMISSED – FEB 2023]
The arresting officer’s statement in relation to this matter stated that the preliminary test displayed a blue line for cocaine, however it would not show a blue line for a positive test. There should be two red lines for a positive. If he only ever saw blue lines then the test didn’t work, and wasn’t positive. He also contradicted himself in other parts of his statement regarding whether the test was positive for cannabis or cocaine. When he gave evidence at the trial on 23rd February 2023 the discrepancies in his evidence were laid bare. The prosecution advocate took instructions from CPS as he realised he was not in a position to prove that the preliminary drug test was positive which undermined the validity of the requirement for a blood specimen. When he returned to Court he formally offered no evidence and the case was dismissed.
R v Priestley Reading Magistrates’ Court [CASE DISMISSED – MAR 2023]
Mr Priestley instructed us after he had been charged with two matters of drug driving, with both incidents occurring within a short space of time.
He entered a not guilty plea at the first hearing and the trial was fixed for 1st November 2022. Various directions were issued in respect of prosecution disclosure which were not complied with. When the prosecution expert evidence was served there were numerous items missing and the reports themselves did not comply with the applicable Rules.
We wrote to the prosecution on numerous occasions to draw their attention to the failures on its part to comply with the Rules and served our own expert evidence.
The prosecution’s forensic expert report did not have a proper expert declaration, forensic examination record or expert schedule of unused material. In addition there were other items missing from the analytical data pack. Following legal argument in which Mr Priestley was again represented by the barrister instructed by us, Phillip Lucas, the District Judge refused permission for the prosecution to rely on expert evidence due to their failures to comply with Court directions or the Criminal Procedure Rules. The prosecution therefore offered no evidence on both matters and they were dismissed.
R v M Bromley Magistrates’ Court [CASE DISCONTINUED – APR 2023]
We were instructed by Mr M after he had been charged with failure to provide a specimen of blood. It became apparent that the police were informed of a medical reason by the Defendant as to why blood could not be provided, namely needle phobia but did not refer the issue to a healthcare professional to determine as required.
Written representations were made to the prosecution on a number of occasions in the intervening period before trial and they eventually discontinued both charges before it was due to take place.
R v C Brighton Magistrates’ Court [OCT 2023]
We were instructed by Mr C after he had been charged with driving in excess of the limit for THC. All matters relating to the procedure for obtaining blood were taken issue with. Mr Burnell instructed us that the blood was not obtained from him using a normal syringe but that the that the nurse attached each vial to a tube, collecting the samples on separate occasions.
Counsel Phillip Lucas was instructed to represent Mr B at the trial. During the course of the trial, it became apparent that the original procedural forms had been altered by the police The police also gave inaccurate evidence regarding their body-worn cameras being switched off in the medical room and regarding the reason for the stop.
The prosecuting advocate at the trial accepted that the evidence given by the police was so unreliable that the case must be stopped. The prosecutor offered no further evidence and the case was dismissed
R v Spearing [NOV 2023]
We were instructed by Mr Spearing after he had been charged with driving whilst unfit through a drug and speeding.
The blood specimen obtained from Mr Spearing was found to be 1.2ug/litre of blood, which was below the legal limit for THC. According to PC Wade’s statement, he formed the view that Mr Spearing was impaired based on his performance on a series of so-called impairment tests carried out after he had been stopped.. This is despite the fact that, according to the police officer’s statement, Mr Spearing performed acceptably in three of the five tests he was asked to complete. It was therefore our view from the outset that the case against Mr Spearing in relation to “driving whilst unfit” was very tenuous indeed. Representations were made to the prosecution before the first hearing but it appears that these were not properly considered. Mr Spearing entered not guilty pleas to the charges ahead of the first hearing and the case was listed for trial.
After the prosecution served further material including video evidence of the impairment tests, an expert report was obtained and served by us which undermined the reliability of the results as they had been interpreted by the police. Around a week before the trial the prosecution discontinued both charges.
R v R [DEC 2023]
Mr R was charged with driving in excess of the limit for BZE and MDMA. A few weeks before it had been due to take place, the prosecution applied to postpone the trial on the basis of witness unavailability which we opposed. he application was refused and the case remained listed for 30th November.
Counsel Mr Phillip Lucas was instructed to represent Mr R at the trial. After preliminary legal argument, the prosecutor accepted that they were in breach of Part 19.3 (3) (d) of the Criminal Procedure Rules due to the failure to serve all the material which required disclosure under the said Rule.. The prosecutor applied for an adjournment of the trial without giving any reason to explain the breaches. The prosecution’s application was opposed by Mr Lucas and refused by the Court resulting in no evidence being offered and the case being dismissed.
R v Robinson [JAN 2024]
We were instructed by Ms Robinson after she had been charged with driving in excess of the limit for THC. She pleaded not guilty to the charge and issue was taken with the validity of the evidential procedure for obtaining blood and the reliability of the analytical result. The trial was fixed for 24th July 2024. In the intervening period expert reports were served by both the prosecution and the defence and requests were made by us for the full analytical data pack . On 24th July, counsel was instructed to represent Ms Robinson however the trial did not proceed due to lack of Court time. Further requests were made for the outstanding analytical data ahead of the adjourned trial, however the Proficiency Test Results had not been provided. At the trial on 22nd January 2024, it transpired that the prosecution laboratory informed the police on 7th July 2024 that they could be inspected at the laboratory but that the prosecution did not inform us that that they could be disclosed by inspection. It was accepted that this amounted to a breach of Part 19.3 (3) (d) of the Criminal Procedure Rules. District Judge Apted refused leave for the prosecution to rely on expert evidence due to this breach and as a result the case was dismissed.
R v McDougall [MAY 2024]
We were instructed by Mr McDougall after he had been charged with driving in excess of the limit for benzoylecgonine and THC. He pleaded not guilty to the charges and issue was taken with the validity of the evidential procedure and the reliability of the prosecution’s analysis.
Counsel Phillip Lucas was instructed to represent Mr McDougall at the trial. The healthcare professional who obtained blood from Mr McDougall was not in attendance nor had the prosecution served a statement from them. There was also material missing from the analytical data pack served by the prosecution. We had obtained and served an expert report based on the incomplete data, referencing the missing items. The prosecutor asked for time to take instructions. There was legal argument concerning whether the prosecution had complied with Part 19 of the Criminal Procedure Rules. The Court ruled that it had not and refused permission for them to rely upon expert evidence. The prosecution therefore offered no evidence and the charges were dismissed.
