Selection of Cases

We have set out hundreds of our previous cases below to give you insight into our expertise and the many ways it is possible to secure a favourable outcome. All of these clients avoided a mandatory driving ban with most awarded costs. Although initials have been used to preserve client confidentiality, all case studies have the names of lawyers involved for verification purposes.

Staines MC – R v JH

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide specimen of blood on a drug driving matter. Jay Lemosa instructed by Stephen Parker (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the court to dismiss the case after Dr Rafiq, psychiatrist provided a fabourable expert report confirming the client had a needle phobia.
Willesden MC – R v PW

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide specimen of breath. The police failed to arrange a Polish interpreter for the police station breath test procedure. The prosecution offered no evidence at trial after Phillip Lucas instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) raised the failure by police to respond to the defence case statement.
Swindon MC – R v HB

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide breath. The issues in the case were medical fitness and the police did not arrange a social worker as required by the codes of practice. Jay Lemosa instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the Court to dismiss the charges after Dr Robinson (expert witness) confirmed the client was vulnerable as the Samaritans had been requested whilst in custody.
Bristol MC – R v AS

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. The client was represented at the first hearing by Stephen Parker. The charges were discontinued before trial after Neil Blackaby (reviewing lawyer) raised the failure of the Polish interpreter to properly explain the statutory warning. Instead of explaining to the client he would be ‘prosecuted’ for failing to provide breath the translator wrongly advised the client would have ‘criminal responsibility’.
Leeds MC – R v JM

The client was prosecuted for driving with cannabis above the specified limit (3.0 in blood) and driving with cocaine above the specified limit (116 in blood). The vial was not shaken for 30 seconds for the preservative to take effect and the client was not given a list of analysts to test the sample independently. At the second hearing which was listed for trial Ronnie Dubb instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence after raising late disclosure of the SFR2 and no attendance by the prosecution analyst.
Peterborough MC – R v TA

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide specimen of breath. The officer failed to assess the client for the need for an Edo speaking translator. Jay Lemosa instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) successfully persuaded the court to dismiss the charges after the officer accepted that he did not seek clarification from the client that he understood the breath test procedure.
Peterborough MC – R v SB

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide specimen of breath. The issues were mental state and failure by police to arrange a social worker which was necessary due to the client’s vulnerable state. Jay Lemosa instructed by Micaila Williams (reviewing lawyer) successfully persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence as the officer did not ask if there were any medical reasons why the breath sample could not be provided.
Derby MC – R v SG

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide. The officer did not repeat the statutory warning as required by the MG DD/A specimen booklet and did not ask if there were medical reasons why the client could not provide the breath specimen. David Houldcroft instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) successfully opposed an adjournment after the officer failed to attend trial resulting in dismissal of the charges.
Ipswich MC – R v GA

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (67 in breath). The issues in the case included failure by police to complete the MG DD/A booklet, unlawful use of handcuffs and evidence of driving. At the second hearing which was listed for trial James Brookes instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) successfully opposed an adjournment by the prosecution resulting in dismissal of the charges after the police failed to update the unused material and a witness failed to attend.
Reading MC – R v OT

The client was prosecuted for driving with cannabis above the specified limit (4.1 in blood). The client had a needle phobia and the blood was taken more than once contrary to the statutory procedure. James Brookes (Gold panel lawyer) instructed by Trevor Feehily (reviewing lawyer) successfully opposed an adjournment request by the prosecution after the police failed to serve the SFR2 (forensic report) resulting in dismissal of the charge.
Swansea MC – R v RG

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (95 in breath). The client did not accept consuming excess alcohol and handcuffs were used without justification. At the second hearing which was listed for trial Victoria Maud instructed by Micaila Williams (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence having successfully opposed an application to adjourn after the operator failed to attend to give evidence.
Bromley MC – R v NP

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (85 in breath). The issues were insufficient alcohol was consumed to exceed the prescribed limit and the client was too distressed to understand the statutory warning. The client was represented at the first hearing by Sneha Shrestha. The charges were discontinued before trial after Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) raised non-disclosure of unused material with the prosecution.
Willesden MC – R v KT

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (41 in breath). The issues were the reliability of the police station breath test device, the statutory warning was not given and the officer made false claims about the manner of driving to justify the vehicle stop. The client was represented at the first hearing by Sneha Shrestha. The charges were discontinued before the second hearing which was listed for trial after Stephen Parker (reviewing lawyer) raised non-disclosure of video footage from the arrest and specimen procedure.
R v BM – York MC

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (47 in breath). The issues in the case included the failure by police to arrange a Nepalese interpreter, fitness to be detained and special reasons due to the shortness of distance driven. At the second hearing which was listed for trial Richard Selway instructed by Trevor Feehily (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence after raising non-disclosure of CCTV from the police station breath test.
Birmingham Crown Court – R v AW

The client appealed against a mandatory disqualification for failing to provide breath (29 months). The magistrates court had incorrectly applied the failing to provide (vehicle driver) sentencing guidelines instead of failing to provide (in charge). David Houldcroft instructed by Neil Blackaby persuaded the court on appeal to replace the mandatory ban with a short discretionary disqualification.
Staines MC – R v DH

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (73 in breath). The issues in the case were the reliability of the breath test device and private land. At the second hearing which was listed for trial, Jay Lemosa instructed by Micaila Williams (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the court to dismiss the charge as users of the car park were limited to visitors to the school rather than the general public.
Peterlee MC – R v JD

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide specimen of breath. The client had a dry throat caused by viral infection. The functioning of the device was also disputed as two evidential samples were provided over two printouts and ‘mouth alcohol’ error messages were noted. The client was represented at the first hearing by Mukesh Sohal. The charges were discontinued before the second hearing after Sandra Cooper(reviewing lawyer) invited the prosecution to reconsider the matter.
Croydon MC – R v PH

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (67 in breath). The client disputed he was over the limit and could not recall the statutory warning. The client was represented at the first hearing by Nick Robinshaw. The prosecution discontinued the case before the second hearing. Laura Heywood was the reviewing lawyer
Maidstone MC – R v KM

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide a specimen of breath. The client had a reasonable excuse namely loss of confidence in the officer after her autistic daughter was manhandled by the police. The client was represented by Margeret Hyde instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer). The charges were discontinued at the first hearing after the police failed to disclose evidence.
Swindon MC – R v BQ

The client was prosecuted for drunk in charge (55 in breath). The client had no intention of driving whilst above the prescribed limit as he did not have the keycard for the Tesla vehicle to start the engine and police misconduct was raised as an issue after the client was threatened with improper use of pepper spray. There was also an issue concerning private land at the hotel where the client was parked. The client was represented by Jay Lemosa at the first hearing. The case was discontinued before the second hearing after Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) served an expert report confirming the client would have been below the prescribed limit at the time he would have next driven the vehicle.
Stevenage MC – R v JF

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (100 in blood). The issues included fitness to consent at the hospital due to injuries sustained after the road traffic accident and the continuity of the blood sample. At the second hearing which was listed for trial Jay Lemosa instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence after the police failed to supply the data pack with the SFR2 forensic report.
Chelmsford MC – R v JB

The client was prosecuted for being drunk in charge (100 in blood) and failing to stop. The issues in the case were no intention to drive the vehicle and continuity of the blood sample. The prosecution indicated they were increasing the severity of the charges to driving with excess alcohol. At the first hearing Sneha Shrestha persuaded the prosecution not to proceed with the more serious charges and to discontinue the failing to stop matter resulting in 10 penalty points and no driving ban.
Bristol MC – R v FD

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (97 in breath) and driving without due care and attention. The issues were post-driving alcohol consumption and mental fitness to understand the breath test procedure. The drink driving charge was discontinued before trial after representations from Ritesh Chauhan (reviewing lawyer). Andrea Cook persuaded the court to impose 3 penalty points for the careless driving matter resulting in no driving ban.
Yeovil MC – R v MC

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (46 in breath). The issues included post-driving alcohol consumption (hip flask defence) and failure by the police to give the statutory warning at the time of the evidential procedure. Phillip Lucas instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence after successfully opposing an adjournment request by the prosecution for them to produce the MG DD/D form with details of alcohol consumed.
Bexley MC – R v RM

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (46 in breath). The reliability of the breath test device was disputed and the officer failed to arrange a Romanian translator. Richard Berman instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence due to non-disclosure of CCTV and unused material.
Croydon MC – R v SJ

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (44 in breath). The reliability of the breath test device was challenged, the officer failed to use a new mouthpiece and it was argued there was insufficient evidence of driving. The client was represented at the first hearing by Nick Robinshaw and the reviewing lawyer was Laura Heywood. The charges were discontinued before the second hearing which was listed for trial.
Sheffield MC – R v SK

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (40 in breath). The issues in the case were insufficient evidence of driving, machine reliability and failure by police to assess the client for a Tigrinyan translator. David Houldcroft instructed by Neil Blackaby (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution at trial to offer no evidence on the driving matter and instead accept a guilty plea to drunk in charge resulting in 10 penalty points and no driving ban.
Reading MC – R v SS

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (246 in urine). The issues in the case were continuity of the sample and procedural correctness. Jay Lemosa instructed by Neil Blackaby (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the court to dismiss the charge as both blood and urine samples were taken unlawfully.
Dudley MC – R v TD

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (44 in breath) and being in charge whilst unfit through drink. David Houldcroft instructed by Stephen Parker (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence on the driving matter resulting in 10 penalty points instead of mandatory driving ban.
Kidderminster MC – R v TB

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (76 in breath). The reliability of the breath test device was in dispute as the defence expert confirmed the client had not consumed sufficient alcohol to exceed the prescribed limit. It was also argued that the statutory warning had not been effectively communicated. Phillip Lucas instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) successfully challenged the admissibility of the breath test printout in the absence of the operator resulting in the prosecution offering no evidence.
Boston MC – R v TG

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide breath. The client was suffering from a chest infection and a favourable medical report was obtained from Dr Gregory which supported the case. David Houldcroft instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) successfully persuaded the court to dismiss the charge after it was pointed out the client had consulted her GP shortly after the incident when physical symptoms had been verified.
Croydon MC – R v AO

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide specimen of breath. The statutory warning had not been given and the client did not accept there was any refusal. The case was discontinued before trial after Eugene MacLaughlin instructed by Stephen Parker (reviewing lawyer) successfully opposed an application to vacate due to the unavailability of the officer.
Poole MC – R v GN

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (51 in breath). The issues in the case were machine reliability as the client did not expect to fail the breath test and insufficient evidence of driving. Eugene MacLaughlin instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the drink driving offence and instead accept a guilty plea to drunk in charge resulting in no driving ban.
Bromley MC – R v KH

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (49 in breath). The issues in the case were the reliability of the breath test device and degrading treatment by arresting officers who mistook the client for someone else. The charges were discontinued before trial after Sneha Shrestha instructed by Micaila Williams (reviewing lawyer) raised non-disclosure of video footage and unused material.
Uxbridge MC – R v AB

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide specimen of breath. The client had a reasonable excuse after loss of confidence in the arresting officers, was not given a proper opportunity to provide a second sample and was not mentally fit to provide. The client was represented at the first hearing by Jay Lemosa. The charges were discontinued before the second hearing. The reviewing lawyer was Stephen Parker.
Chesterfield MC – R v AH

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide specimen of breath. The client did not accept refusal and the functioning of the evidential device was in dispute. At the second hearing which was listed for trial Ronnie Dubb instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the court to dismiss the charges after the prosecution failed to respond to the defence case statement, had delayed serving the unused material which prevented the instruction of a defence expert and the officer in the case had failed to attend.
Stevenage MC – R v MP

The client was prosecuted for driving with cannabis above the specified limit (4.3 in blood). The client was dissuaded from taking her own sample to be independently tested and the nurse who took the blood sample failed to shake the container for 30 seconds for the preservative to take effect which raised questions about the reliability of the sample. At the second hearing which was listed for trial Richard Berman (Gold panel lawyer) instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the court to dismiss the charges after the prosecution failed to arrange for the toxicologist to attend to give evidence.
City of London MC – R v BF

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (70 in breath). The reliability of the breath test device was in dispute as there was a large disparity between the two breath levels (70 and 79) and the higher level was incompatible with the preliminary sample at the roadside (71). The client was represented at the first hearing by Sneha Shrestha. The charges were discontinued before the second hearing which was listed for trial after Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) opposed a request for more time for the prosecution to serve unused material.
Folkestone MC – R v CD

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (147 in urine). The issues in the case included failure by police to provide the client with his own sample to be independently tested and continuity was also disputed. The client was represented at the first hearing by Eugene MacLaughlin. The charges were discontinued before the trial after Neil Blackaby (reviewing lawyer) served an expert report confirming the sample may be unreliable as the preservative powder had not completely dissolved and the police could not confirm if the sample had been refrigerated.
Highbury MC – R v SR

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide specimen of breath. There were mental health issues and the police had failed to arrange a social worker which is necessary where the suspect is vulnerable. Raoul Fishman instructed by Trevor Feehily (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence at trial after the police failed to provide witness statements and unused material had not been served in advance to satisfy prosecution disclosure duties.
Salisbury MC – R v JC

The client was prosecuted for drunk in charge (60 in breath). The issues in the case were there was no intention to drive as the client was waiting in a car park to be collected. At the second hearing which was listed for trial Eugene MacLaughlin instructed by Trevor Feehily (reviewing lawyer) successfully persuaded the court to dismiss the charges.
Derby MC – R v AA

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (144 in urine). The officer did not discard a specimen of urine before taking one for use in evidence contrary to instructions in the specimen booklet, the sample had been frozen by the police instead of being placed in a refrigerator and the continuity of the sample was also disputed. David Houldcroft instructed by Robert English (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence in respect of the driving with excess alcohol matter and to accept a guilty plea instead to careless driving with no driving ban.
Bromley MC – R v DR

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (110 in breath). The issues in the case included failure by police to give the statutory warning and not switching off police radios to comply with home office guidance. The client was represented at the first hearing by Jay Lemosa. The charges were discontinued before the second hearing after the evidence was reviewed by the prosecution. Sandra Cooper was the reviewing lawyer.
Cannock MC – R v AN

The client was prosecuted for driving above the specified limit of cannabis (5.3 in blood). The issues in the case included whether the statutory warning had been given, the failure to provide a list of authorised analysts to the client with his blood sample and continuity. Ronnie Dubb instructed by Robert English (reviewing lawyer) successfully opposed an adjournment request by the prosecution after they failed to serve the SFR2 forensic report for the blood sample. The charges were dismissed after the prosecution offered no evidence.
Northampton MC – R v RS

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (55 in breath). The issues in the case included fitness to be detained at the police station and the reliability of the evidential breath test device. Phillip Lucas instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) successfully opposed an adjournment request by the prosecution after the police officers failed to attend and the prosecution required time to prepare the case after receiving the papers on the morning of the hearing. The case was dismissed after the prosecution offered no evidence.
Cardiff MC – R v JV

The client was prosecuted for driving above the specified limit of cannabis (2.9 in blood). The client was not medically fit to consent and the time of blood sample was not recorded on the tamper evident bag. Victoria Maud instructed by Neil Blackaby (reviewing lawyer) successfully opposed an adjournment request by the prosecution after the expert failed to attend court and the prosecution had failed to serve the SFR2 in good time before the trial to enable the defence expert to provide a report.
Cheltenham MC – R v WF

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (132 in blood). There were mistakes in police procedure namely the officer did not give the statutory warning, did not point out the notice requiring the suspect to refrigerate the sample and the continuity of the sample was disputed. The client was represented at the first hearing by Mukesh Sohal. The charges were discontinued before the second hearing which was listed for trial after Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) raised non-service of the unused material.
Reading MC – R v RD

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (157 in urine). The procedure was not carried out correctly as only one urine sample was taken instead of the two required under the Road Traffic Act 1988. Jay Lemosa instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence after they had failed to serve the SFR2 forensic report and statement from the officer conducting the specimen procedure.
Northampton MC – R v HE

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (119 in breath). The client could not recall the statutory warning and the officer did not ask questions to eliminate contamination from mouthwash and breath spray. Mukesh Sohal instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the driving with excess alcohol charge and instead accept a guilty plea drunk in charge resulting in 10 penalty points and no disqualification.
Kirklees MC – R v TK

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide specimen of breath. The issues in the case included medical reasons due to the physical adverse effects of providing the sample. The client was represented at the first hearing by Darren Withers. The charges were discontinued before the second hearing after the prosecution reviewed the evidence in light of the issues raised. Stephen Parker was the reviewing lawyer.
York MC – R v JW

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (174 in blood). The issues in the case included the continuity of the blood sample and whether the nurse shook the container for 30 seconds for the preservative to take effect. At the second hearing which was listed for trial Laura Heywood (Gold panel lawyer) instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) successfully persuaded the court to exclude the prosecution case after the prosecution failed to serve the unused material and data pack in good time and the nurse failed to attend to give evidence.
Bristol MC – R v ZA

The client was prosecuted for drug driving with cannabis (6.1 in blood). The officer failed to provide a list of analysts for the client to have the sample independently tested and the nurse did not shake the container for 30 seconds. The client was represented by Jimmy Ogunshakin at the first hearing. The charges were discontinued following the first hearing after Neil Blackaby (reviewing lawyer) raised non-disclosure of unused material with the prosecution.
Northampton MC – R v NS

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol and drunk in charge (161 in blood). The client was unconscious in his vehicle on private land and the blood sample was taken at hospital whilst not fit to consent and subsequent permission to test the sample was not obtained. Melanie Lee instructed by Stephen Parker (reviewing lawyer) successfully persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the charges.
Leicester MC – R v JB

The client was prosecuted for being drunk in charge and stopping on a hard shoulder of the motorway. At the first hearing Mukesh Sohal instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence on the second offence resulting in 10 penalty points and no driving ban.
Highbury Corner MC – R v LR

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (195 in blood). The issues were the nurse had failed to shake the container for 30 seconds and the continuity of the sample was also disputed. The client was represented at the first hearing by Alex Gallagher. The charges were discontinued before the second hearing which was listed for trial after Micaila Williams (reviewing lawyer) raised non-disclosure of the unused material with the prosecution.
York MC – R v RF

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide breath. The issue in the case was the statutory warning had not been given. Laura Heywood instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence after the officer in the case failed to attend.
Willesden MC – R v DS

The client applied for removal of a 3 year disqualification imposed for driving with excess alcohol (second conviction). The firm arranged for a DVLA approved blood test to show the client was not alcohol dependent. Richard Berman instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) successfully persuaded the magistrates to remove the ban.
York MC – R v OR

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (56 in breath). The evidential breath test instrument (EBTI) produced a pump error message. The officer continued with the EBTI despite noting on the MG DD/A a decision was made to move to blood before reverting to breath. It was argued that the officer had reason to doubt the reliability of the EBTI and should have taken a blood sample. At the second hearing which was listed for trial the prosecution offered no evidence after representations from Richard Selway instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer).
North Tyneside MC – R v LH

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide specimen of breath. The client had a reasonable excuse due to blackout from laced drinks. The prosecution applied to vacate the trial due to unavailability of the officer. The charges were dismissed after Stephen Parker (reviewing lawyer) served a written response with objections to the adjournment and Ian Hudson instructed by Micaila Williams (reviewing lawyer) successfully opposed the application to vacate.
Willesden MC – R v SL

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (72 in breath). The issues included the failure by the police to arrange a Gujrati translator. The client was represented at the first hearing by Richard Berman. The charges were discontinued before the second hearing which was listed for trial after Neil Blackaby (reviewing lawyer) raised non-disclosure of unused material by police.
Stevenage MC – R v AS

The Defendant was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (124 in blood). The lawfulness of the blood sample was disputed as the operator of the breath test device had no reason to believe the evidential device was not functioning correctly. Jay Lemosa (Gold panel lawyer) instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) successfully applied to exclude the evidence of the officer in the case resulting in dismissal of the charges.
Wimbledon MC – R v SG

The Defendant was prosecuted for failing to provide breath. There were medical issues and the reliability of the breath test machine was disputed. The charges were discontinued before the trial once evidence was requested from the prosecution. Trevor Feehily was the reviewing lawyer.
Uxbridge MC – R v SD

The Defendant was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (82 in breath). The issues in the case included the reliability of the breath test device and police radio interference. The client was represented at the first hearing by Sneha Shrestha. The charges were discontinued before trial after Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) raised non-disclosure of the unused material.
St Albans MC – R v VP

The client was prosecuted for being drunk in charge (56 in breath). The issues in the case included private land and no intention of driving. Richard Berman (Gold panel lawyer) instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) cross examined the police officer at trial who accepted the road could be private as it was a dead end used by a limited class of user namely emergency workers and tradespeople. The charges were dismissed after a submission of no case to answer.
Thames MC – R v MQ

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (67 in breath). The reliability of the breath test device was disputed and the client was not provided with a copy of the breath test printout. The client was represented at the first hearing by James Brookes. The charges were discontinued following the first hearing after Neil Blackaby (reviewing lawyer) raised non-service of the video footage from the police station breath test procedure which was due to the custody sergeant being absent from duties.
Haverfordwest MC – R v JL

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (78 in breath). The issues included private land and there was no intention to drive whilst above the prescribed limit. The client was initially represented by Richard Griffiths, Barrister. The charges were discontinued before trial after Robert English (reviewing lawyer) wrote to the prosecution pointing out the client’s interview supported his case.
Snaresbrook Crown Court – R v MS

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (53 in breath). The issues included the reliability of the evidential breath test device and bad faith by arresting officers who the client suspected had made false claims about the reason for the vehicle stop. At an appeal against conviction Philip Lucas instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) successfully opposed an adjournment request after police officers failed to attend resulting in the prosecution offering no evidence. The prosecution claimed this was the fault of court listings but it was pointed out that a notice was sent by the court advising of the change of date of hearing.
Birmingham MC – R v BM

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide (vehicle driver). The issues in the case were mental fitness and failure by police to call a social worker due to the client’s vulnerable state. At the second hearing which was listed for trial David Houldcroft (Gold panel lawyer) instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to accept a guilty plea to fail to provide (in charge) with relatively short discretionary ban instead of the mandatory 12 month disqualification.
Sheffield MC – R v GS

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide (vehicle driver). The issues were the statutory warning was not given and there was no evidence of driving. At the first hearing David Houldcroft instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to accept a guilty plea to fail to provide (in charge) resulting in 10 penalty points and no driving ban.
Tameside MC – R v PH

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (94 in breath). The client had not consumed sufficient alcohol to exceed the prescribed limit which raised questions about the reliability of the evidential breath test device. Dr Mundy provided an expert report in which an incomplete record of calibration certificates was identified. Phillip Lucas instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence after successfully opposing the prosecutor’s adjournment request following the non-attendance of the officer in the case.
Bromley MC – R v DM

The client was prosecuted for being drunk in charge (152 in breath) above the prescribed limit 35. The client’s husband had called the police with her full knowledge as she was unable to get home after a serious panic attack. It was argued it was not in the public interest to criminalise those asking for help from the police in an emergency. Jay Lemosa (Gold panel lawyer) instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the magistrates to dismiss the charge after listening to the 999 call and were satisfied there was no intention of driving the vehicle.
Bromley MC – R v RT

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide specimen of urine. The police had failed to arrange a Tigrinyan interpreter and they wrongly refused the client’s request for a glass of water. The client was represented at the first hearing by Jay Lemosa. The case was discontinued before the trial after Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) served case law in support of legal arguments.
Cambridge MC – R v SN

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (199 in urine). The issues in the case were the continuity of the evidential specimen and evidence of driving. David Houldcroft instructed by Trevor Feehily (reviewing lawyer) challenged the admissibility of video footage and persuaded the prosecution to accept a guilty plea to a lesser offence of drunk in charge. This resulted in a relatively short discretionary ban instead of the mandatory 12 month disqualification.
Southend MC – R v JC

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide breath. The breath test device was faulty and the police failed to arrange a social worker which was a legal requirement as the client was vulnerable. Philip Lucas instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the court to dismiss the case as the prosecution had failed to respond to the defence case statement until the date of trial and various items of evidence were not disclosed including CCTV from intox procedure, body cam footage and printout from the abortive breath test procedure.
Croydon MC – R v JR

The client was prosecuted for drug driving above the specified limit in cannabis (3.6ug in blood). The issues in the case included the statutory warning, needle phobia and continuity of the blood sample. Nick Robinshaw represented the client at the first hearing. Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue charges before the second hearing which was listed for trial after the police failed to serve unused material.
Maidstone MC – R v SZ

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (52 in breath). The client disputed the reliability of the breath test device (EBTI) as insufficient alcohol was consumed to exceed the prescribed limit. Eugene MacLaughlin (Gold panel lawyer) instructed by Trevor Feehily (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence at the second hearing which was listed for trial. The breath sample could not be relied upon as the operator of the EBTI failed to attend and a legal notice had been sent controverting the printout.
Stevenage MC – R v DT

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (94 in blood). The issues in the case included the failure by police to call Romanian translator, continuity and consent had not been obtained from the doctor in charge of care. James Brookes (Gold panel lawyer) instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence at trial after highlighting non-disclosure of the data pack, body cam footage and statement from the health care professional who took the blood sample.
Uxbridge MC – R v BM

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide specimen of breath. The issues in the case included mental fitness and failure by police to call a social worker which was legally required due to the client’s vulnerability. The client was represented at the first hearing by Mukesh Sohal. The reviewing lawyer was Neil Blackaby. The charges were discontinued after the police failed to serve unused material.
Swansea MC – R v TJ

The client applied for the removal of his disqualification after receiving a 3 year ban for driving with excess alcohol. His driving licence was required for his army career and the firm had arranged home office approved blood tests to demonstrate he was not alcohol dependent. Eugene McLaughlin instructed by Micaila Williams (reviewing lawyer) successfully persuaded the court to set aside disqualification.
Bromley MC – R v SB

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (69 in breath). The issues in the case included the reliability of the breath test device and the failure by police to arrange a Polish translator. Richard Berman represented the client at the first hearing. Robert English (reviewing lawyer) served an expert report confirming the client did not consume sufficient alcohol to exceed the prescribed limit and persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence before trial after raising non-disclosure of unused material and video footage from body cam and evidential procedure.
Bristol MC – R v PM

The client was prosecuted for being drunk in charge (156 in blood). He was asleep in his vehicle due to a disagreement with other occupants at his shared accommodation and he was not intending to drive for a few days. Also the officer unlawfully attempted to dissuade the client against having his own blood sample independently analysed. At the second hearing Victoria Maud instructed by Neil Blackaby (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence.
Worthing MC – R v AB

The client was prosecuted for being drunk in charge (77 in breath). The police failed to arrange proper medical care whilst the client was in custody, the vehicle was on private land and there was no likelihood of the vehicle being driven whilst above the prescribed limit. The client was represented at the first hearing by Sneha Shrestha. The charges were discontinued before the second hearing which was listed for trial after Neil Blackaby (reviewing lawyer) served an expert report confirming the client would have been below the prescribed limit at the time of intended driving.
Bristol MC – R v MT

The client was prosecuted for drunk in charge. The statutory defence applied (no likelihood of driving) as he was staying in a camper van with no intention of driving whilst above the prescribed limit. Lewis Perry instructed by Neil Blackaby (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the magistrates to dismiss the charge at the second hearing which was listed for trial.
Bromley MC – R v CE

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (209 in urine). The client was not provided with a list of analysts by the police to have her sample independently tested which raised questions about procedural correctness. The continuity of the police sample was therefore disputed. Alexander Gallagher (platinum level lawyer) instructed by Trevor Feehily (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the District Judge to exclude the prosecution case after they served body worn video footage and SFR2 (level 2 forensic report) late the day before trial.
Bexley MC – R v MR

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (56 in breath). The reliability of the breath test device was in dispute as there was a faulty printout mechanism and the operator replaced the mouthpiece without using protective gloves to avoid contamination. James Brookes (Gold panel lawyer) instructed by Trevor Feehily (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence at trial after officers accepted abortive printouts had not been retained to check for error messages and arresting officers had used handcuffs contrary to ACPO guidelines.
Highbury Corner MC – R v HH

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide (vehicle driver). There were medical reasons amounting to a reasonable excuse as the client was in pain after arresting officers had used handcuffs despite being told about a recent wrist injury. The client was represented at the first hearing by Sneha Shrestha. The charges were discontinued before the second hearing which was listed for trial after Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) wrote to the court opposing an extension of time for the prosecution to serve its case.
Walsall MC – R v EA

The client was prosecuted for being drunk in charge (58 in breath). The issue in the case was the statutory defence as the client had no intention to drive. Ronnie Dubb instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the court to dismiss the charges at trial.
Derby MC – R v AR

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (40 in breath). The issues in the case included machine reliability and failure to complete the MG DD/A specimen booklet. The client was represented at the first hearing by David Houldcroft (Gold panel lawyer). The charges were discontinued before the second hearing which was listed for trial after Neil Blackaby (reviewing lawyer) served an expert report from Dr Mundy suggesting insufficient alcohol was consumed to exceed the prescribed limit.
Truro MC – R v KR

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (150 in blood). The issues in the case were fitness to consent, mental fitness to understand the statutory warning and continuity. The client was represented at court by Sneha Shrestha (platinum lawyer). Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the charges before trial after they failed to comply with disclosure duties in relation to the SFR/2 and statement of the doctor in charge of care.
Kirklees MC – R v JH

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (128 in blood). The issues in the case were the continuity of the blood sample, the client was not given the option of urine when there were medical reasons for not giving blood and failure to provide blood sample for independent analysis. David Houldcroft (Gold panel lawyer) instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence having successfully opposed an adjournment request by the prosecution due to non-attendance of the health care professional who took the sample.
Croydon MC – R v AL

The client was prosecuted for driving above the specified limit in cannabis (4.8 in blood). The issues in the case included continuity of the blood sample, failure by the police to give information on storage of the sample and private land. The client was represented at the case management by Raoul Fishman. The charges were discontinued before the trial after Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) highlighted the failure by the police to disclose the unused material which is a legal requirement
Leeds MC – R v CB

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide specimen of breath. The issues in the case were medical reasons and whether the procedure was ineffective due to operator error or machine malfunction. At the second hearing which was listed for trial David Houldcroft (Gold panel lawyer) instructed by Trevor Feehily (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence after the police failed to serve the MG DD/ A booklet and breath test printout in good time to allow the defence expert report to be obtained.
Staines MC – R v VN

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide. The issues in the case were reasonable excuse for failing to provide due to mental state and the failure by police to arrange a social worker for the client as a vulnerable person. The client was represented at the first hearing by James Brookes. At the second hearing Laura Heywood who was also the reviewing lawyer persuaded the court to impose 10 penalty points with no driving ban as the police had wrongly charged the client with fail to provide (in charge) instead of fail to provide (vehicle driver).
North Somerset MC – R v TR

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (77 in breath). The issues in the case were failure by police to arrange translator, fitness to be detained and evidence of driving. The charges were discontinued before the second hearing which was listed for trial after Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) highlighted non-disclosure of unused material, video footage and fit to be detained notice from the hospital doctor with the prosecution.
Cheltenham MC – R v SW

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide specimen of breath. Ritesh Chauhan instructed by Trevor Feehily (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the court to dismiss the charge as the officer failed to ask if there were any medical reasons for not providing the breath sample as required by the MG DD/A specimen booklet.
Scarborough MC – R v CQ

The client was prosecuted for being drunk in charge (52 in breath). The issue was no likelihood of the vehicle being driven as the client had no intention of driving having called paramedics whilst feeling suicidal. Laura Heywood (Gold panel lawyer) who was also the reviewing lawyer persuaded the magistrates to dismiss the case at trial.
Highbury Corner MC – R v AR

The client was prosecuted for being drunk in charge (53 in breath). The issues in the case were police radios had not been switched off to comply with home office guidance and there was no likelihood of the vehicle being driven. The client was represented at the first hearing by James Brookes (Gold panel lawyer). The charges were discontinued before the second hearing due to failure by police to comply with disclosure requests. Trevor Feehily was the reviewing lawyer.
Croydon MC – R v DM

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide specimen of breath. The client had medical issues and the functioning of the evidential device was disputed. Raoul Fishman (platinum level lawyer) represented the client at the first hearing. The charges were discontinued before the second hearing which was listed for trial after Neil Blackaby (reviewing lawyer) raised non-disclosure of CCTV from the breath test procedure, MG DD/ A specimen booklet and printout.
Cannock MC – R v JM

The client was prosecuted for driving whilst unfit. The issues in the case included failure of the police to take the second urine sample more than 30 minutes after the first discarded sample. David Houldcroft (Gold panel lawyer) instructed by Trevor Feehily (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence after a skeleton argument was served arguing that the driving whilst unfit charge could not proceed as the matter had been previously withdrawn in substitution of other offences (driving with excess alcohol and driving without due care and attention) which were discontinued.
Romford MC – R v PC

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (115 in breath). The issues in the case included failure by police to arrange German translator for the evidential procedure and special reasons (short distance). The client was represented at the first hearing by Jay Lemosa (Gold panel lawyer) and Trevor Feehily (reviewing lawyer) provided advice. The charges were discontinued before the second hearing due to unavailability of arresting officers.
Uxbridge MC – R v SS

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (59 in breath). The issues in the case were the reliability of the breath test device and mistakes in procedure including failure to complete the MG DD/A specimen booklet. The client was represented at the first hearing by Sneha Shrestha (platinum level lawyer). The charges were discontinued after Micaila Williams (reviewing lawyer) raised disclosure failings by the police namely non-service of the unused material.
Margate MC – R v SK

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (55 in breath). The issues in the case included failure to complete the MG DD/A specimen booklet, machine reliability and driving due to necessity. Jay Lemosa instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the court to find special reasons not to disqualify due to the shortness of distance driven and the medicinal spray used by the client contained alcohol.
Exeter MC – R v JT

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (76 in breath). The issues in the case were post driving alcohol consumption (hip flask defence) and mistakes in police procedure as the police failed to complete a back track calculation before making the charging decision. Neil Blackaby (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the charges on the date of trial after serving a favourable expert report and raising non-disclosure of the custody record which was required as it was necessary to check the medication provided to the client in custody.
Gwent MC – R v CM

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide specimen of blood. Phillip Lucas instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the court to dismiss the charge after arguing the officer did not have grounds to require blood after admitting he did not accept the client’s asthma condition prevented him from providing breath. Also there was no refusal as consent to blood was implied by the client extending his arm on multiple occasions for the nurse who would not accept verbal consent.
Horsham MC – R v GM

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (205 in blood). The issues were the statutory warning was not given, continuity, sample not provided for independent analysis and fitness to consent. Sneha Shrestha (platinum level lawyer) represented the client at the first hearing. The charges were discontinued before the second hearing which was listed for trial after Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) wrote to the prosecution with detailed legal submissions objecting to the first forensic report (SFR1) and highlighting failure to disclose the data pack required by the defence expert.
Mansfield MC – R v DW

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (78 in breath). The issues in the case included mistakes in procedure and post driving alcohol consumption (hip flask defence). The charges were discontinued before the first hearing after Laura Heywood requested details of the case from the prosecution.
York MC – R v PS

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (98 in blood). The issues in the case included continuity, fitness to be detained, insufficient evidence of driving, the vial was not shaken for 30 seconds, duress of circumstances and special reasons. The client was represented at the first hearing by Darren Withers (Platinum level lawyer). The charges were discontinued before the second hearing which was listed for trial after Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) raised non-disclosure of the SFR/2 (level 2 forensic report) and the seal number recorded by the health care professional who took the blood sample was different to the one noted by the officer and forensic lab which raised questions about continuity.
Mansfield MC – R v GE

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (40 in breath). The issues in the case were the printout contained breath alcohol levels below the prescribed limit and the police had failed to obtain a back track calculation to support the higher breath level. Jimmy Ogunshakin (platinum level lawyer) instructed by Laura Heywood persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the charges at the first hearing.
Cheltenham MC – R v SM

The client was prosecuted for driving above the specified limit in drugs namely cannabis (2.1ug) and driving whilst unfit through drink. The issues in the case were continuity and the officer failed to ask if there were medical reasons why blood could not be taken. The client was represented by Lewis Perry at the first hearing. The driving whilst unfit charge was discontinued before trial after Trevor Feehily (reviewing lawyer) highlighted the fact the evidential test in alcohol was below the prescribed limit, no back-track calculation test was carried out and there was no preliminary impairment test. The drug driving charge was discontinued after it was disclosed the officer in the case had a disciplinary record which raised questions about bad character.
Willesden MC – R v AS

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (80 in breath). The issues in the case were the reliability of the breath test device as the pre-release test was incompatible and there was insufficient evidence of driving. The client was represented at the first hearing by Nicholas Rosenfeld (platinum level lawyer). The charges were discontinued before the second hearing which was listed for trial after Robert English (reviewing lawyer) raised non-service of witness statements, CCTV from evidential procedure and custody record.
Croydon MC – R v TM

The client was prosecuted for driving above the specified limit in cannabis (2.8 in blood). The issues in the case were continuity, medical issues were not referred to a doctor and the police failed to provide a list of analysts with the sample given to the client. At the second hearing which was listed for trial James Brookes (Gold panel lawyer) instructed by Neil Blackaby (reviewing lawyer) successfully persuaded the court to dismiss the charges after the police failed to serve the HORT/5 consent form and no statement was provided by the health care professional who took the sample.
Lincoln MC – R v SL

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (148 in urine). The issues in the case were the evidential sample was taken less than 2 minutes after the first discarded sample contrary to caselaw. David Houldcroft (Gold panel lawyer) instructed by Neil Blackaby (reviewing lawyer) successfully opposed a prosecution application to adjourn the case after failing to serve the SFR/2 (level 2 forensic report).
Salisbury MC – R v PC

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide breath (vehicle driver). The issues in the case were failure by police to give the statutory warning. At the second hearing which was listed for trial Alex Gallagher (platinum level lawyer) instructed by Neil Blackaby (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to accept a lesser charge of failing to provide (in charge) which resulted in 10 penalty points and no driving ban.
Portsmouth MC – R v JO

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (90 in breath). The issues in the case were post driving alcohol consumption (hip flask defence) and non-completion of the MG/DD A specimen booklet. The charges were discontinued at the first hearing after David Houldcroft (Gold panel lawyer) persuaded the prosecution there was insufficient evidence of driving.
Uxbridge MC – R v NA

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide blood. The issues in the case were reasonable excuse due to mental state and the police failed to arrange a social worker which is a legal requirement where the detainee is vulnerable. The client was initially represented by Nicholas Rosenfeld (platinum level lawyer). The charges were discontinued before the adjourned trial after Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) raised incomplete MG DD/B blood specimen booklet and non-disclosure of CCTV from the specimen procedures.
Salisbury MC – R v DK

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (98 in blood). The issues in the case were continuity of the sample and failure to provide the client with his own sample for independent analysis. The client was represented at the first hearing by Sneha Shrestha (Platinum lawyer). The charge was discontinued after Neil Blackaby (reviewing lawyer) rejected the SFR/1 (level 1 forensic report) in writing.
Preston MC – R v AP

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (73 in breath). The issues in the case were failure by police to give the statutory warning and not providing copy printout at the time of the evidential procedure. Alex Rostron instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the magistrates to dismiss the charge after arguing the witness statement from the breath test operator and printout had been served too late which prevented a fair trial.
Willesden MC – R v IG

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (62 in breath). The issues in the case were the reliability of the breath test device, no statutory warning and failure to complete MG DD/A specimen booklet. The client was represented at the first hearing by Jay Lemosa. The charges were discontinued before the second hearing after Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) raised non-disclosure of CCTV from the intox and booking in procedure.
Reading MC – R v PL

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (75 in breath). The issues in the case were mental fitness to understand the statutory warning, fitness to be detained and whether sufficient evidence of driving. James Brookes (Gold level lawyer) instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the magistrates to dismiss the charges after the officer claimed to be aware of the breath alcohol levels from the custody record (having failed to adduce the printout as evidence) when in fact there was no such information.
Brighton MC – R v RV

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (70 in breath). The issues in the case were post driving alcohol (hip flask defence), fitness to be detained and failure to arrange Portuguese translator. The client was represented at the first hearing by Cynthia Hunt. The charges were discontinued before the second hearing which was listed for trial after Neil Blackaby (reviewing lawyer) opposed a prosecution application to vacate due to unavailability of the custody officer.
Staines MC – R v SR

The client was prosecuted for being drunk in charge (203 in blood). The issues were no likelihood of vehicle being driven, private land and continuity of the blood sample. The client was represented at the first hearing by Raoul Fishman. The charges were discontinued before the second hearing which was listed for trial after Micaila Williams (reviewing lawyer) raised non-service of forensic evidence for the defence expert to prepare a report.
Mansfield MC – R v DH

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (84 in blood). The issues in the case were continuity, failure to ask if there were medical reasons for not giving blood, insufficient evidence of driving and the client was not given rights to speak to lawyer by phone. The client was represented by Laura Heywood at the first hearing. Robert English (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the charges after highlighting non-disclosure of body worn video footage from the arrest and evidential procedure and the data pack for the blood sample which was required by the defence expert to provide a report.
Willesden MC – R v RH

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (69 in breath). The issues in the case were insufficient alcohol was consumed to exceed the prescribed limit, the roadside breath level was incompatible, the timings on the printout were incorrect and officers had failed to switch off police radios to comply with home office guidance. Philip Lucas instructed by Neil Blackaby (reviewing lawyer) successfully persuaded the Court to exclude the MG DD/ A breath specimen booklet in the case as the prosecution had failed to include maintenance logs and calibration certificates in the schedule of unused material.
Romford MC – R v GU

The client was prosecuted for being drunk in charge (56 in breath). The issues in the case were statutory warning not given, MG DD/ A specimen booklet not completed, fitness to be detained and no intention of driving. The client was represented at the first hearing by David Richter. The charges were discontinued before the second hearing which was listed for trial after Micaila Williams (reviewing lawyer) raised non-disclosure of video footage and documentation from the evidential breath test procedure.
Stratford MC – R v OA

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (56 in breath). The issues in the case were the police failure to give the statutory warning, non-completion of the MG DD/A specimen booklet and disproportionate force by arresting officers as the client sustained injuries when pushed into the police vehicle. At the second hearing which was listed for trial, Jay Lemosa (Gold panel lawyer) instructed by Micaila Williams (reviewing lawyer) successfully opposed an adjournment request by the prosecution due to non-attendance of police witnesses and the breath test printout could not be relied upon as this had been controverted in writing.
Highbury Corner MC – R v HK

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (49 in breath). The issues in the case included machine reliability due to margin of error, failure to give the statutory warning, incompatible preliminary sample and fitness for detention after the client sustained a neck injury. The client was represented at the first hearing by Sneha Shrestha (Platinum level lawyer). The case was discontinued before the second hearing which was listed for trial after Micaila Williams (reviewing lawyer) highlighted non-disclosure of unused material.
Stratford MC – R v HH

The client was prosecuted for driving whilst unfit through drink. The issues in the case were non-completion of the MG DD/A specimen booklet and questions were raised as to why the police were proceeding with an unfit charge (section 4) instead of excess alcohol (section 5) which relies upon a breath sample. The client was represented by Sneha Shrestha (Platinum level lawyer) at the first hearing. The charges were discontinued before the second hearing after Trevor Feehily (reviewing lawyer) raised disclosure issues with the police including interview tape and custody record.
Cannock MC – R v RB

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (63 in breath). The issues were machine reliability, the statutory warning was not given, insufficient evidence of driving and handcuffs had been used without justification which raised questions about the conduct of the arresting officers. David Houldcroft (Gold panel lawyer) instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) successfully persuaded the Court the breath sample could not be used as evidence without the operator present as the printout had been controverted in writing. The prosecution offered no evidence.
Staines MC – R v AL

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide breath specimen. The issues in the case were medical issues and the functioning of the breath test device. Phillip Lucas instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the Court there was no case to answer as the operator failed to investigate whether there were any medical reasons and a ‘long blow’ fault was identified on the breath test device.
Willesden MC – R v EF

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide specimen of urine. The officer requested the urine sample after the client blew below the prescribed limit despite two breath samples being obtained with no errors on the printout. The client was represented at the first hearing by Sneha Shrestha (Platinum level lawyer). The case was discontinued before the second hearing listed for trial after Neil Blackaby (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution there was no permissible reason for moving to a urine sample.
Highbury Corner MC – R v JA

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (47 in breath). The issues in the case were the reliability of the breath test device due to the borderline breath alcohol level, the officers failed to switch off police radios to comply with home office guidance and did not complete the MG DD/A specimen booklet. The client was represented at the first hearing by Eugene McLaughlin. The case was discontinued before the second hearing which was listed for trial after Sandra Cooper raised non-disclosure of CCTV from the custody suite and breath test room.
Kirklees MC – R v KM

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide (vehicle driver). The issues in the cases were mental fitness to provide the breath sample, no social worker was provided to the client as a vulnerable suspect and no statutory warning was given. Laura Heywood (Gold panel lawyer) who was also the reviewing lawyer persuaded the prosecution to accept a guilty plea to a lesser charge of failing to provide (in charge) resulting in a short discretionary ban of 14 days instead of the mandatory 3 year ban for second conviction.
Uxbridge MC – R v MS

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide specimen of breath. The issues in the case were the functioning of the breath test device, medical reasons (asthma) for failing to provide, no statutory warning was given and no Hungarian translator was provided. The client was represented at the first hearing by Jay Lemosa. The case was discontinued before the second hearing which was listed for trial after Neil Blackaby (reviewing lawyer) highlighted non-disclosure of unused material, CCTV from the breath test room and body worn footage which prevented the defence instructing a medical expert.
Cardiff MC – R v DT

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (58 in breath). The issues in the case included failure by police to give the statutory warning, post driving alcohol (hip flask defence), evidence of driving and fitness for interview. The client was represented by Lewis Perry at the first hearing. Trevor Feehily (reviewing lawyer) successfully persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the charges before the trial after highlighting numerous disclosure failings including unused material, CCTV from the breath test room, printout and MG DD/A specimen booklet.
Peterborough MC – R v DS

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (90 in blood). The issues in the case were continuity, failure to arrange a Romanian translator and the client drove out of necessity through fear for the safety of his partner after she received threats. The client was represented by Jay Lemosa at the first hearing. Robert English (reviewing lawyer) successfully persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the charges before the second hearing which was listed for trial after raising non-disclosure of the body cam footage from the arrest procedure and specimen procedure.
Bexley MC – R v PG

The client was prosecuted for being drunk in charge (125 in breath). The issues in the case were mistakes on the specimen procedure including not switching off police radios and failing to ask questions to eliminate risk of contamination. The client was represented at the first hearing by Jay Lemosa. The case was discontinued before the second which was listed for trial after Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) raised disclosure failings namely non-service of unused material.
Stratford MC – R v NN

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide specimen of breath. The issues in the case were the police did not arrange a French translator which was necessary as the client had difficulty with long or technical words and there was no refusal. Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the charges before trial after raising numerous issues with disclosure, namely no witness statement from the operator and no video footage from the evidential procedure.
Portsmouth MC – R v ML

The client was prosecuted for being in charge above the specified limit in drugs (Ketamine). The issues in the case were the statutory warning was not clearly communicated, the MG DD/B specimen booklet was illegible, the consent form for the blood sample was not served, the client lacked mental capacity, he was not properly assessed by a health care professional before the specimen procedure and the continuity of the blood sample was disputed as no forensic examination record was served. Phillip Lucas (Gold panel lawyer) instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) served a skeleton argument on the prosecution setting out these matters resulting in the charges being discontinued before the trial.
Croydon MC – R v MS

The client was prosecuted for driving above the specified limit in drugs (cannabis). The issues in the case were continuity of the blood sample, the statutory warning had not been given and the nurse did not shake the container for 30 seconds for the preservative to take effect. Laura Heywood persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the charges before trial after raising the failure to serve the data pack and the MG DD/B specimen booklet was illegible.
North Somerset MC – R v GH

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (121 in blood). The issues in the case were the chain of continuity as the label on the tamper evident bag was not completed correctly and the client had not been given the statutory reason for abandoning the breath test procedure. The client was represented by Lewis Perry at the first hearing. Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the charges before trial having highlighted non-disclosure of video footage of the specimen procedure and quality assurance certificate for the blood analysis.
Bexley Heath MC – R v VG

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (128 in urine). The issues in the case included the timing of the two urine samples which were taken too close together so they were in effect from one stream as opposed to two distinct samples. Jay Lemosa (Gold level lawyer) instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) successfully opposed an adjournment request by the prosecution after officers failed to attend trial resulting in no evidence offered.
Leeds MC – R v LW

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (88 in breath). The issues in the case were the machine had produced two breath samples over the permitted 15% breath difference which required the officer to move to blood or urine in accordance with the MG DD/ A specimen booklet. At the trial, Oliver Connor instructed by Neil Blackaby (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence as body cam footage had not been disclosed confirming the identity of the vehicle driver.
Llandudno MC – R v CN

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (70 in breath). The issues were private land, mental fitness to understand the statutory warning and fitness for interview. Andy Holliday instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) successfully opposed an application to adjourn the trial due to non-attendance of officers in the case resulting in no evidence offered by the prosecution.
Newcastle under Lyme – R v KO

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (58 in breath). The issues in the case included the reliability of the breath test device and failure to complete the MG DD/A specimen booklet. The client was represented by David Houldcroft at the first hearing. The prosecution discontinued charges before the second hearing after Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) raised non-service of unused material.
Cardiff MC – R v MS

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide specimen of blood. The issues in the case included mental fitness and failure by police to arrange translator. Hywel Davies instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) successfully persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence as the police failed to serve body cam footage dealing with the specimen procedure.
Wimbledon MC – R v GE

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide urine. The issues in the case included reasonable excuse, as the police had not provided water and the arresting officer had used handcuffs without justification in breach of police guidelines. The client was represented by Sneha Shrestha (platinum lawyer) at the first hearing. Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) sent a skeleton argument to the prosecution setting out legal defences to be relied upon. The prosecution discontinued the charges before the second hearing which was listed for trial.
Staines MC – R v MB

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (89 in blood). The issues in the case included continuity of the blood sample, mental fitness to understand the statutory warning and laced drinks. At the second hearing which was listed for trial, James Brookes (Gold panel lawyer) instructed by Micaila Williams (reviewing lawyer) successfully applied to dismiss the charges as the SFR2 (level 2 forensic report) was served too late to enable the defence expert to be instructed.
Colchester MC – R v EI

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (76 in breath). The issues in the case were evidence of driving as arresting officers arrived on the scene whilst the client was out of his vehicle and the police had failed to switch off police radios to comply with home office guidance to avoid interference with the evidential breath test device. Eugene MacLaughlin represented the client at the first hearing. Neil Blackaby (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the charges before the second hearing which was listed for trial after raising disclosure failings in relation to CCTV from the specimen procedure.
Swansea MC – R v CB

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (111 in breath). The issues in the case were the client denied driving, there were mistakes on the breath test procedure as the MG DD/A specimen booklet had not been completed and the forensic evidence on the airbag was disputed. Hywel Davies instructed by Neil Blackaby (reviewing lawyer) successfully opposed an adjournment application at the second hearing which was listed for trial due to non attendance of police witnesses. The prosecution offered no evidence and the charges were dismissed with costs awarded.
Bexley MC – R v SO

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (49 in breath). The issues in the case were that the officer at the time of the breath test had indicated that the calibration certificate was out of date and handcuffs were used without justification contrary to police guidance. James Brookes (Gold panel lawyer) persuaded the District Judge to make an order for disclosure of the calibration certificate. Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) also wrote to the prosecution pointing out that this material was part of type approval for the evidential breath test device resulting in charges being discontinued.
Hull MC – R v JI

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (114 in blood). The issues in the case were the police had not supplied a container for independent analysis and the client was not medically fit to consent after sustaining injuries following a road traffic accident. Darren Withers (platinum lawyer) represented the client at the first hearing. Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the charges as the SFR2 (level 2 forensic report) was provided shortly before trial with insufficient time for the defence expert to provide an opinion.
Loughborough MC – R v US

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (40 in breath). The issues in the case were the breath alcohol level was within the margin of error which raised questions about the reliability of the device and the officer failed to complete the MG DD/A specimen booklet. The client was represented at the first hearing by David Houldcroft (Gold panel lawyer). Robert English (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the case before the second hearing which was listed for trial by arguing a fair trial was not possible after the police deleted video footage from the breath test room.
Birmingham MC – R v HA

The client was charged with failing to provide a specimen of breath. The client had mental health issues and had no confidence in the officer conducting the breath test procedure due to a previous incident. The client was represented at the first hearing by Ritesh Chauhan (platinum lawyer). The charges were discontinued before trial after Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) submitted a skeleton argument concerning the failure by police to arrange a social worker before deciding whether to prosecute which is a legal requirement in failing to provide cases where the suspect is vulnerable.
Cambridge MC – R v NG

The Defendant was prosecuted for driving whilst unfit through alcohol. The issues in the case were the breath alcohol level (38) was such that driving would not have been impaired and fitness to be detained. Richard Berman (Gold panel lawyer) instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the Magistrates to impose penalty points for careless driving with no disqualification after the prosecution were persuaded to offer no evidence for the driving whilst unfit matter.
Bromley MC – R v ZC

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. The issues in the case were borderline breath alcohol within the margin of error (46 in breath), failure to provide printout at the time of the breath test procedure and the clock on the device had not been updated from GMT which raised questions about servicing and maintenance of the breath test device. At the second hearing Jay Lemosa (Gold panel lawyer) instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence as pages were missing from the MG DD/A booklet, no video footage had been provided and the police had failed to supply unused material.
Chelmsford MC – R v MP

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (50 in breath). The issues in the case were machine reliability as the client did not accept sufficient alcohol was consumed to exceed the prescribed limit. There were also mistakes in procedure including the failure by police to give the statutory warning. Following representation by Sneha Shrestha (platinum lawyer) at the first hearing the charges were discontinued after Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) raised non-disclosure of video footage from the specimen procedure.
Staines MC – R v SN

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. The issues in the case were machine reliability and mental fitness to understand the statutory warning. The charges were dismissed after Eugene McLaughlin (Gold panel lawyer) instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) successfully opposed an attempt to adjourn the case after the police officers failed to attend Court to give evidence.
Great Yarmouth MC – R v MW

The client was prosecuted for being drunk in charge. The issues in the case were no intention to drive and more than two breath samples were taken contrary to the statutory procedure. The client was represented by Sneha Shrestha (platinum level lawyer) at the first hearing. Thereafter the charges were discontinued after requests for disclosure of MG DD/A breath specimen booklet and printout by Neil Blackaby (reviewing lawyer) prompted a review of the evidence by the prosecution.
Nottingham MC – R v KO

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (120 in urine) and assault. The issues were fitness for interview, fitness for detention, continuity and reliability of the sample as the two urine specimens were taken less than 30 minutes apart. After representation by Ritesh Chauhan (platinum level lawyer) Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence after raising non-disclosure of unused material.
Colchester MC – R v HB

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (41 in breath). The issues in the case included the reliability of the breath test device, failure to ask questions on the breath test booklet and private land as the car was located in a car parking space for businesses. At the second hearing which was listed for trial, Jay Lemosa (Gold panel lawyer) instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the Court to dismiss the charges as the officer could not confirm the public used the land with permission of the owners.
High Wycombe MC – R v SD

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (101 in blood). The issues in the case included the continuity of the sample, failure by police to advise on storage and attempting to dissuade the client against having the sample independently tested. Jay Lemosa (Gold panel lawyer) instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence after raising the failure by police to serve the data pack which was necessary for the defence expert to provide a report on the reliability of the blood sample.
Willesden MC – R v DG

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide a breath specimen of breath. The issues in the case were reasonable excuse due to loss of confidence in the police officers, no statutory warning was given and the client was denied access to legal advice subject to confirmation the lawyer was on site at the time of the specimen procedure. After representation by Jay Lemosa at the first hearing, Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the charges before the second hearing listed for trial after raising the failure to service unused material and body worn video footage.
Wimbledon MC – R v SH

The client was prosecuted for being drunk in charge (83 in breath). The issues in the case were mistakes in procedure namely failure to give the statutory warning and non completion of the MG DD/A specimen booklet. The charges were discontinued after Robert English (reviewing lawyer) raised non-disclosure of the link to access video footage from the breath test procedure.
Westminster MC – R v SW

The client was prosecuted for driving above the specified limit in cannabis. The issues were mental fitness to understand the statutory warning, needle phobia and failure by police to refer medical issues to the nurse. The sergeant who conducted the specimen procedure was unavailable for the trial. Jay Lemosa (Gold panel lawyer) instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) successfully opposed a request for adjournment by the prosecution resulting in no evidence being offered.
Willesden MC – R v SC

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (79 in breath). The issues in the case were private land, evidence of driving and the reliability of the evidential breath test device at Colindale police station. Following representation by Richard Berman (Gold level lawyer) at the initial hearing the charges were discontinued after Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) raised non-disclosure of video footage by the police from the breath specimen procedure.
Nottingham MC – R v SB

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (65 in breath). The issues in the case were the reliability of the breath test machine as the device at the Notts City Centre police station had produced an ambient fail instrument message and three breath specimens had been taken in breach of the statutory procedure which provides for two samples to be taken. Furthermore the statutory warning had not been repeated. An expert report from Dr Mundy was obtained in support. Josh Radcliffe instructed by Neil Blackaby (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the Court to dismiss the charges with costs from central funds.
Doncaster MC – R v RO

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (49 in breath). The issue in the case was the reliability of the machine and potential contamination from hand gel. The prosecution failed to disclose body worn footage from the arrest procedure and video footage from the breath test procedure had no sound. Phillip Lucas instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the Court that an officer should be present to deal with outstanding disclosure issues which necessitated an adjournment. The prosecution thereafter offered no evidence after the adjournment was successfully opposed.
Caenarfon MC – R v JE

The client was prosecuted for being drunk in charge (123 in breath) after being found asleep in his vehicle by officers. The issues included absence of any intention to drive whilst above the legal limit and breach of duty of care by the police as they failed to provide adequate clinical attention for the client’s medical condition. Kevin Batch instructed by Micaila Williams (reviewing lawyer) successfully persuaded the Court to dismiss the charges.
Croydon MC – R v MP

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. The issues in the case were private land as there was signage showing the car park was for permit holders only. Also the breath test device at Brixton Police station was disputed as it had been noted in another case that the machine did not have a calibration certificate for the period in question. Jay Lemosa (Gold panel lawyer) instructed by Neil Blackaby (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue charges on the date of trial.
Bromley MC – R v TR

The client was charged with driving above the specified limit in cannabis. The client was dissuaded by the officer from taking his own sample to be tested independently and the continuity (chain of custody) of the sample was in dispute. Richard Berman (Gold panel lawyer) instructed by Micaila Williams (reviewing lawyer) successfully opposed an adjournment requested by the prosecution after an officer failed to attend resulting in no evidence offered by the prosecution.
Crawley MC – R v AB

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide breath specimen. The issues in the case were reasonable excuse as the client was not mentally fit due to shock after being involved in a road traffic accident. Alessandra Williams instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the failing to provide (vehicle driver) matter and instead the client received 10 penalty points for failing to provide (in charge) with no disqualification.
Newport MC – R v LW

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide urine specimen. The issues in the case were reasonable excuse as the client was not mentally fit and failure by police to arrange a social worker which was legally required as the client was vulnerable. Lewis Perry (platinum level lawyer) instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence at trial as the prosecution had failed to supply video footage from the police station which was necessary for the defence expert to provide a report.
Luton MC – R v BP

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide breath specimen. The client had a reasonable excuse as he was suffering from covid symptoms. The prosecution was unable to supply the video footage which was necessary for the defence expert to provide a full medical report. Richard Berman (Gold panel lawyer) instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) successfully opposed an attempt by the prosecution to adjourn the case to comply with their disclosure duties resulting in dismissal of the charges.
Walsall MC – R v CD

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide blood specimen at the hospital. The issues in the case were reasonable excuse based on medical reasons and failure by police to obtain consent from a doctor. After representation by Lewis Perry at the first hearing, Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue charges before the trial after pointing out the relevant provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
Birmingham MC – R v MB

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide breath specimen. The issues in the case included the failure by police to give the statutory warning or complete the MG DD/A specimen booklet, failing in their duty of care by not providing medication and reasonable excuse on medical grounds namely heart condition the symptoms of which the police mistook for intoxication. After representation by Jimmy Ogunshakin at the first hearing, Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue charges before the second hearing which was listed for trial as the prosecution failed to supply unused material or witness statements exhibiting video footage.
Lincoln MC – R v JR

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. The issues in the case were the continuity and reliability of the blood sample as the container was not shaken by the nurse. The prosecution failed to serve the SFR2 (level 2 streamlined forensic report) and a prosecution witness was unavailable for the trial. Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) successfully opposed an attempt to adjourn the case by the prosecution resulting in charges being discontinued before trial.
Wimbledon MC – R v IA

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide urine for analysis. The issues in the case were the failure of the police to call a Greek translator despite the client’s daughter assisting with communication with the arresting officers. After representation by Jay Lemosa (Gold panel lawyer) at the first hearing Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the case before the second hearing which was listed for trial.
York MC – R v TS

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (50 in breath). The issues in the case were the failure of the police to arrange a translator and special reasons (laced drinks). At the second hearing listed for trial Katie Spence instructed by Robert English (reviewing lawyer) successfully opposed an adjournment request by the prosecution after police witnesses failed to attend Court. The charges were dismissed.
Leeds MC – R v MS

The client was charged with failing to provide breath specimen. The client was vulnerable and had relatives present whilst in custody in previous cases. The issue in the case was the failure to arrange a social worker by the police. The prosecution failed to supply video footage to enable the defence expert to provide a report. Benjamin Whittingham instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the Court to exclude the prosecution case as a fair trial was not possible resulting in no evidence being offered and defence costs awarded.
Northampton MC – R v RR

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. The issues in the case included post driving alcohol (hip flask defence). The police obtained a back track calculation which was favourable to the Defendant as it showed her breath alcohol level would have been zero at the time of driving and between 19 and 61 after post driving alcohol which was consistent with the breath test printout which was 46. The police misinterpreted the report to mean she was over the prescribed limit at the time of driving. Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) wrote to the prosecution pointing out this discrepancy and persuaded them to discontinue the charges before the second hearing which was listed for trial.
Oxford MC – R v VH

The firm applied for the removal of the client’s 40 month ban imposed for driving with excess alcohol. Home office approved blood tests were obtained to demonstrate he was not alcohol dependent and did not pose a risk to other road users. James Brookes (Gold panel lawyer) instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the Court to remove the disqualification to enable the DVLA to reinstate his driving licence.
Portsmouth MC – R v CA

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (106 in breath). The issues in the case included the hip flask defence (post driving alcohol consumption). James Brookes (Gold panel lawyer) instructed by Robert English (reviewing lawyer) identified disclosure issues at trial including non-production of the original MG DD/A specimen booklet. The prosecution was persuaded to discontinue the drink driving matter with a guilty plea instead to drunk in charge with 10 penalty points and no driving ban.
Willesden MC – R v MM

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. The issues in the case included the reliability of the evidential breath test device and mistakes in procedure. Micaila Williams (reviewing lawyer) raised non-disclosure of CCTV from the specimen procedure which was necessary for the defence expert to provide an opinion. Also the operator of the machine had not provided a witness statement which was required for the prosecution to prove its case. The charges were discontinued before the trial.
Huddersfield MC – R v AC

The Defendant was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. He drove his vehicle to the rear of his property intending to call a taxi after his partner threatened to damage his laptop. Kevin Batch instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the Magistrates not to disqualify the client on the grounds there were special reasons due to shortness of distance driven.
Folkestone MC – R v JP

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. The issues in the case were special reasons due to shortness of distance driven. The client drove the vehicle 30 metres in a holiday park to seek help from security staff following a domestic disturbance. Eugene MacLaughlin (Gold level lawyer) instructed by Micaila Williams (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the Court to impose 8 penalty points with no disqualification.
Willesden MC – R v WA

The Defendant was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. The reliability of the breath test device was disputed and the officer failed to switch off police radios to comply with home office guidance. The prosecution discontinued the charges after Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) raised the failure by police to provide unused material, breath specimen booklet and CCTV which was required by the defence expert to provide a report.
Kings Lynn MC – R v IT

The Defendant was charged with failing to provide a specimen of breath. The police did not arrange a Romanian interpreter for the evidential procedure despite the client having difficulty understanding instructions on how to provide the specimen. Jay Lemosa (Gold panel lawyer) instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the charges at the second hearing.
Kings Lynn MC – R v JJ

The client was prosecuted for driving above the specified limit in cannabis. The issues in the case included whether there was sufficient evidence of driving. The client had given a confession after a false assurance by the officer that he would be dealt with as in charge of the vehicle instead of drug driving. Sneha Shrestha (Platinum lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the more serious driving allegation at the first hearing with 10 penalty points for being in charge.
Croydon MC – R v TC

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide specimen of breath. The issues in the case were bad faith by the police as the client had been harassed by officers over a 2 year period and he disputed the reasons for stopping his vehicle. The client also denied there was a refusal to provide the specimen. The police failed to serve the CCTV from the specimen procedure which was not listed on the schedule of unused material and therefore formed part of the prosecution case. The prosecution offered no evidence before the second hearing which was listed for trial after Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) wrote to the prosecution raising non-disclosure of the CCTV.
Leeds MC – R V DH

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. The issues in her case were the reliability of the breath test device and an expert report by Dr Mundy confirmed the client did not consume sufficient alcohol to exceed the prescribed limit. There were also disclosure issues as the police had failed to retain CCTV to enable the expert to comment on the functioning of the machine. Ronnie Dubb (silver level lawyer) instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence after the officer conducting the specimen procedure did not attend trial.
Harrogate MC – R v SG

The Defendant was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol at 63 in breath. The issue in the case was special reasons as the vehicle had been moved a short distance from his neighbours’ drive. Paul Fleming instructed by Micaila Williams (reviewing lawyer) successfully persuaded the Magistrates to impose 10 penalty points instead of the mandatory driving ban.
Reading MC – R v ZS

The Defendant was charged with failing to provide blood at the police station and failing to provide a preliminary breath sample at the roadside. The issues included needle phobia, failure to give statutory reasons for moving to a blood sample and failure to give the statutory warning at the roadside. The prosecution discontinued the main charge before trial. Raoul Fishman, instructed by Neil Blackaby (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence on the preliminary sample after raising disclosure failures in respect of body worn video footage and officers had been de-warned without the permission of the Court.
Wimbledon MC – R v EF

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. The issues in her case were the legality of the arrest as no caution was administered and there was no preliminary breath test at the roadside. Richard Berman (Gold panel lawyer) instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence at the trial as the arresting officer was not present to give evidence.
Croydon MC – R v WM

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. It was noted from a previous case handled by the firm that the same breath test device at Brixton Police station had no valid calibration certificate. This was raised with the prosecution in writing by Neil Blackaby (reviewing lawyer) together with the failure by the police to supply video footage from the intoximeter procedure. The charges were discontinued before the trial.
Stratford MC – R v AM

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. The issues in the case were degrading treatment, grossly disproportionate force and inhumane conditions by the police amounting to torture. The client had passed out in the police van from lack of ventilation, urinated in his clothes from being denied toilet facilities and sustained loss of sensation to his hands from the misuse of handcuffs. The charges were discontinued before trial after Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) wrote to the prosecution arguing a fair trial was not possible as the police had failed to supply body worn video footage.
Basildon MC – R v MS

The client was prosecuted for driving above the specified limit in cannabis. The issues in the case were the failure by police to notify the client how to have the sample independently tested and ask if there were medical reasons why blood should not be taken. There were also continuity issues as to the storage of the sample and the SFR1 (level 1 forensic report) had no name for the scientist who carried out the analysis. The case was discontinued before trial after written representations by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) that as the datapack had not been served the prosecution had failed to comply with criminal procedure rules.
Colchester MC – R v PH

The Defendant was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol in breath. The issues in the case were mistakes in procedure during the specimen procedure and hip flask defence (post driving alcohol). After representation by Eugene MacLaughlin, the charges were discontinued before the second hearing which was listed for trial after Micaila Williams (reviewing lawyer) served an expert report from a forensic consultant on the prosecution confirming that the client’s account was consistent with the breath alcohol level.
Worthing MC – R v KD

The Defendant was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol in blood. The issue in the case was the continuity of the blood sample as the seal on the container was not intact. Neil Blackaby (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the charges before the second hearing which was listed for trial after raising questions about the full analytical data pack and requiring the attendance of the police forensic expert at Court.
Wimbledon MC – R v OY

The Defendant was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol in breath. The issues in the case were mistakes in procedure including failure to use a new mouthpiece on the breath test device or switch off police radios to comply with home office guidance. After representation at the first hearing by Richard Berman (Gold panel lawyer) with Neil Blackaby as reviewing lawyer the case was discontinued before the second hearing.
Willesden MC – R v JC

The client was prosecuted for being drunk in charge. An expert report confirmed that he would not have been over the prescribed limit at the time he intended to drive. An application by the prosecution to use previous convictions against the client was successfully opposed after a counter notice was served by the firm. At the second hearing which was listed for trial Richard Berman (Gold panel lawyer) instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) successfully persuaded the Judge to dismiss the charge and award defence costs.
Willesden MC – R v TR

The client was charged with failing to provide breath specimen. The issues in the case were medical reasons after the client experienced pain and discomfort to her stomach from a recent gastric bypass operation which prevented her from complying with the breath test procedure. The case was discontinued after representation at the first hearing from Jay Lemosa (Gold panel lawyer) and advice from Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer).
Willesden MC – R v HC

The client was charged for failing to provide. The issues in the case were the failure to repeat the statutory warning in accordance with para A12 MG DD/A breath specimen booklet. After representation at the first hearing by Alexander Gallagher (Platinum level lawyer), Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue charges before the second hearing which was listed for trial after raising the failure by police to review the CCTV from the evidential breath test procedure or refer to this within the unused material or serve this as evidence.
Highbury Corner MC – R v KN

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. The issues in the case were the reliability of the breath test device, mistakes in police procedure and the failure of the police to explain the statutory warning correctly through a Greek interpreter who was called to assist. Instead of making clear the client would be prosecuted if the breath sample was not provided the client was wrongly notified he would merely be arrested which did not satisfy legal requirements. After representation by Alexander Gallagher (Platinum lawyer) at the first hearing Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the charges before the second hearing after raising the failure by police to serve unused material.
Thames MC – R v DY

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. The issues in the case were fitness to be detained after vehicle airbags deployed in a road traffic accident and the inspector wrongly authorised the client to be interviewed without a lawyer. Richard Berman (Gold panel lawyer) instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence after an adjournment was refused due to non-attendance of the police operator.
St Albans MC – R v RS

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol in blood. The issues in the case were the failure to provide the client with his own container to test the blood sample independently, medical fitness to consent and continuity. The prosecution failed to serve the data pack with the level 2 forensic report (SFR2) which was critical as it was not clear how many samples were received by the laboratory. On the date of trial Alexander Gallagher (Platinum level lawyer) instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to adjourn the case to provide the data pack with a view to opposing the application. The prosecution offered no evidence after the Judge indicated she was not prepared to grant an adjournment as it was clear that evidence should already have been served.
Bath MC – R v MF

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. The issues in the case were mistakes on the breath test procedure, insufficient evidence of driving and private land. Enquiries with the local authority and land registry confirmed that the road was privately owned as it belonged to developers and the prosecution failed to serve witness statements proving the client was the vehicle driver. Jay Lemosa (Gold panel lawyer) instructed by Neil Blackaby (reviewing lawyer) successfully opposed an adjournment request by the prosecution after witnesses failed to attend Court resulting in no evidence being offered by the prosecution.
Chelmsford MC – R v RR

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. The issues in the case were the failure to arrange a Turkish translator and the police had taken one breath sample when there is a legal requirement for two evidential breath samples to be taken. After representation by Alexander Gallagher (Platinum level lawyer) the charges were discontinued on the date of the first hearing.
Bromley MC- R v CG

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. The issues were mistakes in police procedure as the caution had not been given meaning the arrest was unlawful and there was a challenge to the breath test device as insufficient alcohol had been consumed to exceed the prescribed limit. After representation by Alexander Gallagher (Platinum level lawyer) with Micaila Williams as reviewing lawyer, the charges were discontinued shortly after the first hearing.
Northampton MC – R v CB

The client was charged with failing to provide a breath specimen and assault on police constable. The issues in the case were the client’s mental fitness and failure by the police to arrange an appropriate adult due to the client’s vulnerable state as required by case law. At the second hearing which was listed for trial, Laura Heywood (Gold level lawyer) instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the Judge to dismiss the charges as the police had not considered the need for an appropriate adult in the custody record and the failure to serve video footage meant there could not be a fair trial as the defence expert could not produce a report without this material.
Great Yarmouth MC – R v MP

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. The issues in the case were mistakes in procedure and the failure to arrange a Portugese translator for the evidential procedure. The two breath samples were beyond the permitted 15% breath difference which required the officer to move to blood or urine in accordance with guidance in the MG DD/A specimen booklet. Before the second hearing which was listed for trial, Micaila Williams (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the charges after setting out the case in writing.
Colchester MC – R v DD

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. The issues included post driving alcohol consumption (hip flask defence) and mistakes in police procedure. The charges were discontinued before the second hearing which was listed for trial after written representations from Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) highlighting the fact the firm had controverted the printout at the outset of the case meaning that evidence of the breath sample was inadmissible without the officer present having successfully opposed an application by the prosecution to vacate the trial.
Leeds MC – R v JC

The client was charged with failing to provide breath specimen. The issues included reasonable excuse based on mental state and there were questions about the possibility of machine malfunction or operator error. Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) served a defence case statement on the prosecution with a preliminary report from Dr Robinson to support disclosure of CCTV from the breath test room which was needed to complete a full report. The charges were discontinued before the second hearing which was listed for trial.
Crawley MC – R v CL

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) identified several issues in the case including private land as the road/ car park used by the client led to one place namely flats whereas under caselaw a road is defined as a passage between two points. There were also questions about procedural correctness as the identification procedure was carried out without solicitors despite the police being aware they had been instructed. The case was discontinued before the first hearing.
Westminster MC – R v CM

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. There was also a charge of wasting police time after reporting the vehicle stolen. The issues in the case included mistakes in police procedure during the evidential breath test and insufficient evidence of driving. Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) wrote to the prosecution with standard information requests to check compliance with specimen procedures. The drink driving and wasting police time offences were discontinued before the first hearing resulting in no driving ban with a low fine for obstruction of police constable after representation by Eugene MacLaughlin (Gold level lawyer).
Leeds MC – R v TC

The client was charged with failing to provide. The issues in the case were loss of confidence in the police due to grossly disproportionate force at the time of arrest and reasonable excuse due to mental state at the time of the breath test. The client had been thrown to the ground and handcuffed after asking to call his partner. Body cam footage confirmed the arresting officers were abusive towards the client. The prosecution offered no evidence at the second hearing which was listed for trial after James Yearsley instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) raised the failure by police to disclose CCTV and the non-attendance of the arresting officer after successfully opposing a video link application by the prosecution.
Wimbledon MC – R v SL

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. The client had consumed alcohol after driving (hip flask defence) and error messages on the machine had been noticed by the client during the breath test procedure at the police station. There were also questions about medical fitness to be detained as the airbags had deployed during the road traffic accident. Neil Blackaby (reviewing lawyer) served a forensic report on the prosecution with calculations supporting the client’s alcohol consumption and pointed out that the time between the collision from the informant’s statement and time of arrest (40 minutes) was sufficient time for the client to have consumed alcohol after driving. The prosecution discontinued the case before the second hearing which was listed for trial.
Chelmsford MC – R v KB

The client was charged with failing to provide a specimen. The client fled the scene at the time of arrest after the officer requested a roadside breath sample. The issues were the police had failed to give the statutory warning and the police had prosecuted the case under the wrong section of the Road Traffic Act as fail to provide at the police station. At the second hearing listed for trial Laura Heywood (gold panel lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to amend the charge to the less serious fail to provide (preliminary sample) offence resulting in 4 penalty points and no driving ban.
Ealing MC – R v VU

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. The issues in the case were mental fitness to understand the statutory warning as the client had ADHD and the officer failed to explain the warning clearly and there was a calibration error message on the machine before the device produced two breath samples which required the officer to move to blood or urine. After representation from Siddick Gokhool at the first hearing, Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the charges before the second hearing after raising the failure by the police to produce a witness statement from the officer exhibiting the body cam footage.
Stratford MC – R v WA

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. The issues in the case included post driving alcohol (hip flask defence) and mistakes in procedure. Neil Blackaby (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue charges after the first hearing as CCTV from the breath test procedure confirmed that the officer failed to give the statutory warning which is a strict legal requirement.
Barrow MC – R v JW

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide (vehicle driver). The issues in the case were the failure by the police to give the statutory warning and reasonable excuse as the client had been distracted by matters which he considered more serious (which is permissible legal argument under case law) namely a false allegation of assault. Alexander Rostron instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to accept a guilty plea to fail to provide (in charge) at the first hearing with 10 penalty points imposed by the Court instead of a lengthy driving ban.
Boston MC – R v KH

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide (vehicle driver). The issues in the case were the failure by the police to arrange a social worker which was a legal requirement due to the client’s vulnerable state, disproportionate force by the police on arrest and there was no evidence of driving. At the first hearing Laura Heywood (gold panel lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to accept a guilty plea to failing to provide (in charge) which carries 10 penalty points or discretionary ban. The client already had 9 penalty points so to avoid a 6 month ban under the totting up procedure the Court was persuaded instead to impose a short ban of 6 weeks.
Ipswich MC – R v MT

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. The issues in the case were mistakes in procedure as the police had failed to complete the MG DD/A booklet and did not ask questions to eliminate contamination. The prosecution also failed to serve a copy of the breath test printout 7 days before trial as required by the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. Eugene McLaughlin (Gold panel lawyer) instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence at the second hearing after successfully opposing an attempt to adjourn the case to allow time to serve the evidence.
Swansea MC – R v SF

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. The issues in the case were mistakes in procedure and the reliability of the breath test device. Micaila Williams (reviewing lawyer) raised the failure of the police to comply with disclosure duties with no unused material and no section 3 disclosure letter. The prosecution discontinued charges before the second hearing.
Luton MC – R v JF

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol in blood. The client consumed alcohol after the time of alleged driving (hip flask defence) and the prosecution were required to prove the identity of the driver. The prosecution failed to serve the level 2 forensic report (SFR2) which was necessary after the District Judge noted at the first hearing that the SFR1 was not agreed by the defence. Jay Lemosa (Gold level lawyer) instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence at the second hearing which was listed for trial.
Doncaster MC – R v FC

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (90 in breath). The firm raised the failure of the officer to give the statutory warning after a delay of 26 minutes before the breath sample was provided and there were questions concerning suspected laced drinks. Laura Heywood (Gold level lawyer) instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence after the officer failed to attend Court on the date of trial.
Bradford MC – R v MH

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide (in charge of vehicle). The issue in the case was medical reasons for failing to provide due to the client’s asthma condition. Chris Filer instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence at the second hearing after highlighting the police failure to serve the CCTV or custody record which was necessary for a defence expert to be instructed and prosecution witnesses had failed to attend trial to give evidence.
Uxbridge MC – R v MG

The client was prosecuted for being drunk in charge. After representation by Richard Berman (gold level lawyer) at the first hearing, Robert English (reviewing lawyer) wrote to the prosecution highlighting the failure of the police to interview so that the police had not properly investigated whether the statutory defence (no likelihood of vehicle being driven whilst over prescribed limit) applied in the case. The failure to serve unused material and section 3 disclosure letter was also raised when the charges were discontinued before the second hearing.
Lewes Crown Court MC – R v EB

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) served a skeleton argument on the prosecution submitting that the offence could not be committed as the car park was private land as it was for the use of residents and their visitors. The prosecution conceded the point and did not contest the appeal which was allowed by the Judge at the second hearing.
Peterborough MC – R v MS

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide breath sample. The client was not mentally fit and there were also questions about the functioning of the evidential breath test device. Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) raised prosecution failure to serve CCTV from the specimen procedure, body cam footage and copy MG DD/A breath test booklet which was necessary for the defence expert to be instructed. The charges were discontinued before trial.
Portsmouth MC – R v SM

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. The client’s vehicle had been involved in a collision and he admitted to being the driver in the interview. The issues in the case were fitness to be detained at the police station, fitness for interview and the reliability of the evidential breath test device as the client had provided a borderline breath alcohol level. The charges were discontinued before the first hearing once the firm wrote to the prosecution confirming we would be checking compliance with specimen procedures.
Basingstoke MC – R v RA

The client was initially suspected of driving with excess alcohol after his vehicle was found on its side having crashed into a garden wall. After giving a no comment interview at the police station on the advice of the firm the charges were limited to careless driving, failing to stop and report and leaving vehicle in dangerous position. At Court Jay Lemosa (gold panel lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue two of the charges at the first hearing resulting in 7 penalty points and no driving ban.
Medway MC – R v RM

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide (vehicle driver) after breaking down in his vehicle. Jay Lemosa instructed by Eugene MacLaughlin (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to amend the charge to the less serious failing to provide (in charge) offence. Then after legal argument the Court accepted the penalties should be set at category 2 (not category 1 sought by prosecution) resulting in 10 penalty points and no driving ban.
Uxbridge MC – R v CH

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol in urine. The issues in the case included fitness to consent and continuity. The prosecution expert who provided the SFR2 (level 2 forensic report) did not attend trial as no attempt was made to call the witness despite the continuity of the sample being in dispute. Richard Berman instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence after an adjournment request for the expert to attend was refused.
Llanelli MC – R v AS

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. There were issues with the breath test procedure as the device had displayed an interfering substance error message. There were also questions as to whether the caravan park was private land, the legality of the interview was in dispute after no arrangements were made by the police for a lawyer to be physically present and the vehicle was driven due to fear for personal safety. Shortly after the first hearing the charges were discontinued as the prosecution was not in the pubic interest due to domestic violence issues in the case. The reviewing lawyer was Sandra Cooper.
Milton Keynes MC – R v JB

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. The client had provided a breath alcohol level which was far higher than expected. There were also questions concerning whether there was sufficient evidence of driving and the police had used grossly disproportionate force whilst the client was in custody. The charges were discontinued in writing before the first hearing as the evidential device had not been calibrated.
Snaresbrook Crown Court – R v GE

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. The client denied having driven the vehicle and the police had failed to administer a caution at the time of arrest. On the appeal against conviction the officers failed to attend Court. Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) advised the client to oppose the request for adjournment due to the history of the case resulting in the prosecution offering no evidence.
Southend MC – R v LB

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. The client had consumed alcohol after the time of alleged driving (hip flask defence) and there were issues with the breath test procedure which had to be repeated. The case was discontinued before the first hearing after Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) wrote to the prosecution with disclosure requests.
Chelmsford MC – R v LZ

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. The issues in the case included the failure of the police to arrange a Lithuanian translator and breath samples were taken despite a 15% breath difference on an earlier abortive breath test in breach of guidance in the MD GG/ A specimen booklet which requires the officer to move to a blood or urine sample. CCTV footage from the specimen procedure was deleted after being requested in writing. The case was discontinued before the trial after the advocate lawyer instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) raised issues with the breath test printout.
Southampton MC – R v JM

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. The issues in the case were the reliability of the blood specimen and continuity. During the case the prosecution expert ceased to be qualified through failing to maintain competency. The prosecution then applied to produce the report in writing instead. The advocate lawyer instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) successfully persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the charges at trial as the expert was not the same person who carried out the analysis and statements from the person who tested the blood sample had not been served as evidence.
Brighton MC – R v NR

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. The issues in the case were mental fitness to understand the statutory warning and a mouth alcohol error message had been displayed by the breath test machine which required the officer to move to blood or urine. Eugene MacLaughlin (reviewing lawyer) raised case management failings by the prosecution including non-service of CCTV from the breath test procedure and unused material. The charges were discontinued in writing before trial.
Staines MC – R v JL

The client was prosecuted for being drunk in charge. The issues in the case included the statutory defence (no likelihood of driving) and private land. There was signage at the car park which confirmed its use was limited to visitors of a community centre and it was closed at the time of arrest. The owners of the car park also confirmed the car park was private land. Following written representations from Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) with case law in support of legal argument on the private land issue the case was discontinued before the second hearing when it was disclosed that the police had deleted video footage which had been requested.
Doncaster MC – R v LO

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol in blood. The issues in the case were continuity of the blood specimen, fitness to consent and post driving alcohol (hip flask defence). At the second hearing Chris Filer instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the charges after it was noted that the police officer had failed to obtain consent from the doctor in charge of care for the blood sample to be taken which is a legal requirement under the Road Traffic Act 1988.
Colchester MC – R v OD

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. The two breath specimens had been provided 16 minutes part which raised questions about procedural correctness and whether the statutory warning should have been repeated before the second sample. There were also case management failings as the police had not complied with their disclosure duties by serving video footage from the specimen procedure. Richard Berman (gold level lawyer) instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence at the second hearing listed for trial after the officer in the case failed to attend.
Llanelli MC – R v TE

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. The client had consumed alcohol after the time of alleged driving (hip flask defence) and the police had failed to arrange a back track calculation before deciding whether to charge as required by the MG DD/A breath specimen booklet. At the first hearing Richard Berman persuaded a District Judge there were gaps in the evidence as the police could not say what alcohol had been consumed before driving. Neil Blackaby (reviewing lawyer) then raised numerous issues with disclosure in writing including failure to serve specimen booklet, video footage and unused material. The case was discontinued after the first hearing.
Barkingside MC – R v WO

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. The client had sustained head injuries due to grossly disproportionate force by arresting officers and was not medically fit to be detained and it was also to be argued that the police behaved with bad faith towards the client by falsely claiming that his vehicle had been stopped due to erratic driving which was denied. At the first hearing Jay Lemosa (gold level lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to withdraw charges as the police had failed to supply evidence for the hearing.
Bexley MC – R v TG

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. The client had a severe asthma attack during the breath test procedure. The issue in the case was whether the police had a legal duty to move to blood or urine on medical grounds under the Road Traffic Act 1988. The case was discontinued following the first hearing after Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) raised non-service of the evidence pack with the prosecution.
Uxbridge MC – R v SD

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol in blood. The issues in the case included the reliability of the sample as the container had not been shaken for 30 seconds, continuity and the clients medical fitness to consent. Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) raised prosecution disclosure failings including no SFR/2 (level 2 forensic report), no MG DD/C (hospital specimen booklet), no HORT5 (form completed by nurse) and no unused material. The prosecution discontinued the case in writing before the trial after these matters were raised by Richard Berman (instructed by Sandra Cooper) at a case management hearing.
Wimbledon MC – R v MH

The client was prosecuted for driving above the specified limit in cannabis. The issues in the case were continuity and reliability of the blood sample as the container was not shaken for 30 seconds. Neil Blackaby (reviewing lawyer) raised disclosure issues throughout the case including non service of the unused material. After rejecting the SFR2 (level 2 forensic report), the statement from the health care professional and opposing an application for the analyst to give evidence by live link the prosecution discontinued the charges before trial.
Stratford MC – R v JV

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. The procedure was challenged as the printout mechanism was faulty and the statutory warning was not given adequately. Jay Lemosa instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) successfully applied to have the charges dismissed at trial after the officer accepted he had not done anything to satisfy himself the client understood the warning.
Highbury MC – R v HD

The client was prosecuted for driving above the specified limit in cannabis. The legal issues were the continuity of the blood sample, tainted evidence due to the degrading treatment of the client by the arresting officers and mental fitness to understand the statutory warning at the time of the blood specimen procedure. The officer who conducted the specimen procedure failed to attend trial. Jay Lemosa instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence after opposing an attempt to call another officer to give evidence. This was the second case successfully defended by the firm for the client.
Leeds MC – R v HK

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (42 in breath). The legal issues were machine reliability, whether police radios were switched off during the specimen procedure and whether the officer was qualified to use the machine as the operator of the breath test device was being supervised. At the trial, William Staunton, instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) successfully opposed an adjournment request after the prosecution failed to serve witness statements for the breath test operator and the other officer. The prosecution offered no evidence.
Huddersfield MC – R v LH

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide breath sample. The legal issues were whether there was sufficient evidence to prove the identity of the vehicle driver, whether the statutory warning had been given and whether the client was under the influence. On the date of trial, Besty Hindle instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to accept the evidence was limited to showing the client was in charge of the vehicle as witnesses had failed to attend Court. This allowed the Court to impose penalty points instead of a mandatory ban. Although the client totted up (having 3 points already) the Court was persuaded there was exceptional hardship and the client avoided a driving ban.
Leeds MC – R v JW

The client was charged for driving with excess alcohol in breath. The issues included mental fitness to understand the statutory warning. Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) represented the client at trial and persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence after the police claimed they had not received a request for video footage from the specimen procedure when they had in fact responded to the email which discredited the officers in the case.
Oxford MC – R v BK

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol in blood. The issues included fitness to consent and failure to provide container to client with own sample for independent analysis. Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) made written representations to the prosecution in respect of the failure by the police to comply with directions for the service of an SFR2 (level 2 forensic report) and unused material resulting in the case being discontinued.
Kirklees MC – R v BH

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. The expert report from Dr Mundy showed that the client had not consumed sufficient alcohol to exceed the prescribed limit raising questions about the reliability of the breath test device and the client could not recall the statutory warning at the time of the police station breath test which is a strict legal requirement. On review of the CCTV from the evidential procedure it was apparent that the police had not given the warning. Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) made written representations to the prosecution resulting in the case being discontinued before the second hearing.
Uxbridge MC – R v JR

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. The issues identified were the reliability of the breath test device as the client had provided a borderline breath alcohol level and insufficient evidence of driving. At the second hearing the advocate lawyer, instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) made a successful half time submission of no case to answer due to the prosecution failing to produce evidence of driving.
Ealing MC – R v MR

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide breath specimen. One of the issues was whether the breath test was ineffective due to machine malfunction or operator error. Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) made written representations to the prosecution about the non-service of the mouthpiece used during the specimen procedure which was required as part of defence case preparation. The charges were discontinued before the second hearing.
Highbury Corner MC – R v BG

The client was prosecuted for being in charge whilst under the influence of drugs. The advocate lawyer instructed by Neil Blackaby (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence at trial as they had failed to comply with their disclosure duties with no letter under section 3 CPIA 1996 or schedule of unused material.
Romford MC – R v SB

The client was prosecuted for being drunk in charge. Jay Lemosa instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the Court that the client had no intention of driving as he lived a short walk away from where the vehicle was parked. A forensic report was used to show that the client would have been below the prescribed limit at the time he intended to drive. The charges were dismissed after trial.
Croydon MC – R v MK

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol above the prescribed limit in blood. The client was not offered a urine sample after disclosing needle phobia. Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) obtained an expert report from Dr Mundy and highlighted issues with disclosure namely failure to serve notes from the examination form to enable the defence expert to comment. The charges were discontinued after the first hearing.
Uxbridge MC – R v MA

The client was charged with failing to provide breath specimen. The issue identified was the police failure to arrange a social worker due to client’s vulnerable state. He had previously sustained a brain injury and was displaying unpredictable behaviour. Following the first hearing the charges were discontinued after Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) served a skeleton argument with supporting caselaw.
Manchester and Salford MC – R v ZU

The client was charged for driving above the specified limit in cannabis. The nurse had taken a blood sample despite pain and discomfort caused from abortive attempts to find a vein. It was submitted there were medical reasons for abandoning the specimen procedure and the continuity of the chain of custody in relation to the blood sample was in dispute. Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the charges after they failed to provide the SFR2 (level 2 forensic report) and data pack for the use of the defence expert.
Colchester MC – R v DB

The client was charged for driving with excess alcohol in blood. The defence expert Dr Mundy identified numerous issues with the reliability of the blood analysis including evidence of contamination, incorrect quality assurance criteria was used, no results of the fluoride analysis were disclosed, and there were continuity issues with the sample reference from the blood specimen booklet which was not mentioned in the documentation supplied by the analyst. Dr Robinson, psychologist also confirmed that the client was not mentally fit to understand the statutory warning. The prosecution agreed both reports. Jay Lemosa, instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the charges.
Ipswich MC – R v DV

The client was charged for driving with excess alcohol in breath. The police had entered the incorrect breath alcohol level on the charge sheet and despite the issue being raised at Court the prosecution failed to serve the printout within 7 days of trial which is a legal requirement. They also applied late to amend the charge. After written representations from Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) the case was discontinued before trial.
Croydon MC – R v BD

The client was charged for driving with failing to provide breath specimen and careless driving. The client was not mentally fit to comply with the specimen procedures or understand the statutory warning which is a strict legal requirement. Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) made written representations to the CPS that they were required to serve body cam footage and MG DD/A breath test booklet as this material did not appear on the schedule of unused material which indicated this was to be used as evidence. The prosecution discontinued the matter on the grounds they were unable to comply with their disclosure duties after failing to provide this additional evidence.
Nottingham MC – R v KR

The client was charged for driving with excess alcohol in breath. Special reasons were submitted to the Court in respect of the shortness of distance driven and emergency. The client was assaulted by her partner who was driving. She told him to get out of the car and quickly moved over to the drivers seat and drove 100 metres away to get away from him. There were injuries which were witnessed by the police which supported her account. Danae Larham instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) successfully persuaded the District Judge not to disqualify or impose penalty points.
Westminster MC – R v GY

The client was charged for driving with excess alcohol in blood. The Defendant had a needle phobia which was not taken into account by the officer conducting the specimen procedure. Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) wrote to the prosecution highlighting numerous police disclosure failings including the absence of a scientist attached to the SFR1 and non-service of data pack contrary to the criminal procedure rules. After the first hearing the prosecution discontinued the charges in writing avoiding the need for contested trial.
Romford MC – R v SS

The client was charged for driving with excess alcohol in blood. The issues were significant mistakes in procedure after the police charged the client on a breath sample despite a 15% breath difference. The prosecution amended the charge to a blood sample at which time the continuity of the chain of custody was challenged with request for SFR2 forensic report. The prosecution failed to serve this additional evidence. After written representations from Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) and warning of disclosure application and wasted costs from Eugene MacLaughlin (reviewing lawyer) the prosecution discontinued the charges.
Nottingham MC – R v TD

The client was charged with failing to provide breath specimen. The issues identified were the police failing to arrange a social worker due to client’s vulnerable state and mental fitness to comply with specimen procedures. After the first hearing the charges were discontinued after Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) requested various video and documentary evidence from the prosecution and set out the defence in writing. The client avoided a driving ban and criminal record and defence costs were awarded.
Uxbridge MC – R v RS

The client was charged for driving with excess alcohol. The client had vomited 15 minutes before the breath test causing risk of contamination. The operator failed to wait 20 minutes before taking a breath specimen and no note was made of the reasons for continuing with the procedure as required by the guidance in the booklet. Richard Berman (gold panel lawyer) instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) successfully persuaded the prosecutor to offer no evidence at trial resulting in no driving ban.
Wimbledon MC – R v VR

The client was charged for driving with excess alcohol. The client argued that he was not mentally fit at the time of the evidential breath test and a Hindi interpreter was not provided despite having difficulty with long and technical words. Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue charges before trial after the police failed to produce an adequate schedule of unused material within the timeframe set by the Court.
Lincoln MC – R v KH

The client was charged with failing to provide a breath specimen. The client was arrested at hospital after the police officer refused to speak to her doctor to confirm that the reason she appeared unsteady was due to her medical issues. Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue charges before trial after raising non-service of CCTV and body cam footage.
Great Yarmouth MC – R v SL

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. The issues in the case were machine reliability, mistakes in breath test procedure and insufficient evidence of driving. Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue charges before trial after highlighting numerous disclosure failings including non-service of unused material.
Stratford MC – R v HD

The client was charged with driving above the specified limit in cannabis. Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) made written representations to the prosecution for the case to be reviewed as the police had failed to serve an SFR2 (level 2 forensic report), full analytical data pack and HORT/5 (statement of nurse taking the blood sample). The prosecution was persuaded to discontinue the charge before trial.
Barnsley MC – R v PT

The client was charged with being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle. Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) served a skeleton argument with Land Registry office copies and title plans showing that the land was accessible by residents and visitors not the general pubic and was therefore private land. The prosecution was persuaded to discontinue the charge before trial.
Willesden MC – R v BC

The client was charged with failing to provide specimen. The police did not arrange a social worker for the specimen procedure which was required under the codes of practice as the client was vulnerable. Eugene McLaughlin, reviewing lawyer persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the case before trial.
Uxbridge MC – R v MN

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. The issue in the case was the failure of the police to arrange a Bulgarian translator for the specimen procedure despite having arranged one for the booking in procedure. Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue charges before trial after highlighting disclosure issues including non-service of unused material.
Cardiff MC – R v RT

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue charges before trial as it could not be proved that the road was used by the public notwithstanding it was council owned. Costs were awarded.
Staines MC – R v BD

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. The machine had failed to produce a breath test printout and the operator of the device failed to retain the CCTV from the breath test room to allow the procedure to be checked. The advocate lawyer instructed by Eugene MacLaughlin (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the District Judge that the case should be dismissed.
Walsall MC – R v RB

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol The issues in the case were the reliability of the breath test device. Phillip Lucas (gold level lawyer) instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence as the police had failed to produce service logs after it was noted that the gas cylinder was out of date. Costs were awarded to the client.
Romford MC – R v TM

The client was charged with being drunk in charge whilst above the prescribed limit. The issues in the case were mistakes in procedure and reliability of the breath test device as the police operator had expressed concerns about the machine during the specimen procedure. Also the client was pursuing the statutory defence of no likelihood of the vehicle being driven whilst above the legal limit. Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue charges after highlighting prosecution disclosure failings including non-service of the unused material.
Stratford MC – R v MD

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. The issues in the case were procedural correctness and mental fitness to understand the statutory warning as the client was in severe physical discomfort having been refused access to the toilet. Charges discontinued after Eugene McLaughlin (reviewing lawyer) applied to Court for disclosure of prosecution material for the defence expert which had not been received from the police.
Reading MC – R v LD

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol on a blood sample. The client had driven out of fear for her safety following a domestic violence incident. Charges were discontinued following written representations by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) after the prosecution had failed to respond to a bad character application.
Wimbledon MC – R v PN

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol on a breath sample. The charges were discontinued after representations by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) in relation to prosecution failure to comply with Court directions for the service of unused material and CCTV. The issues in the case were the reliability of the breath test device, police radios were not switched off and the statutory warning was not given at the time of the evidential breath test.
Llanelli MC – R v AR

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol on a breath sample. The charges were discontinued after representations by Eugene McLaughlin (reviewing lawyer). The police failed to arrange an appropriate adult for the interview which was required as the client was vulnerable due to his anxiety disorder. There were also mistakes in procedure on the evidential breath test.
Reading MC – R v AA

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol on a blood sample. The charges were dismissed at trial after representation by Jay Lemosa (gold panel lawyer) with instructions from Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer). The police failed to serve an SFR2 forensic report in good time for the trial.
Medway MC – R v BK

The client was prosecuted for being drunk in charge. The charges were discontinued before trial after representation at the first hearing by Jay Lemosa (gold panel lawyer) and written representations by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) in relation to police disclosure failings. This issues in the case were continuity and failure to provide the client with a container after a urine sample had been taken.
Ipswich MC – R v NL

The client was charged for failing to provide. Daniel Rasteen instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the District Judge not to disqualify on the grounds of exceptional hardship after the client totted up more than 12 penalty points.
Horsham MC – R v LW

The client was charged for driving with excess alcohol after taking over control of the vehicle from his wife to drive a short distance. Jay Lemosa (gold panel lawyer) instructed by Eugene McLaughlin (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the Court not to disqualify on the grounds there were special reasons.
North Tyneside MC – R v RJ

One of our reviewing lawyers Laura Heywood persuaded the prosecution to drop the case before trial after prosecution failed to serve initial disclosure of unused material. Client was challenging the legality of the breath test procedure as the police failed to arrange an interpreter.
Willesden MC – R v HF

Laura Heywood again persuaded the prosecution to drop the case due to the same failure by the prosecution to serve initial disclosure of unused material. Client had a medical reason for failing to provide a breath specimen due to his injuries after a road traffic accident.
Birmingham MC – R v CE

Jay Lemosa, in-house lawyer on the gold service persuaded the Court not to allow an adjournment to the prosecution after the police witness failed to attend Court due to having to attend his wife’s hospital appointment. Client was challenging the legality of the blood sample which was taken without good medical reasons.
Camberwell Green MC – R v MA

Laura Heywood persuaded the prosecution to drop the case before trial after prosecution failed to serve CCTV. Client was challenging the reliability of the machine as insufficient alcohol was consumed to exceed the prescribed limit.
Bromley MC – R v SW

Jay Lemosa persuaded the prosecution at the first hearing to offer no evidence after it was noted that the two breath specimens had a higher than permitted 15% breath difference.
Bromley MC – R v IK

One of our in-house lawyers on the platinum service Richard Berman (with assistance of Sandra Cooper reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence after prosecution failed to serve unused material and CCTV. Client had been cuffed and strip searched without justification.
Croydon MC – R v EA

One of our reviewing lawyers Sandra Cooper successfully persuaded prosecution in writing to discontinue after serving legal submissions and supporting caselaw. Medical reason was raised by client for not giving blood, but the issue was not referred to a doctor.
Worthing MC – R v JM

John Oliver, a lawyer on the firms’ silver service (with instructions from Sandra Cooper) successfully persuaded the Court to refuse an application by the prosecution to adjourn after the prosecution expert failed to attend Court. The client was challenging the level of cannabis in his blood which was 2.1 with the specified limit being 2.
Bristol MC – R v SR

Philip Lucas gold panel lawyer (with instructions from Sandra Cooper) successfully defended a charge after non-disclosure of unused material and CCTV. Client could not recall statutory warning and put prosecution to strict proof of driving.
Birmingham MC – R v MH

David Houldcroft in house lawyer on the platinum service (with instructions from Sandra Cooper) invited prosecution to offer no evidence after they were refused an adjournment following non-disclosure of CCTV. Client maintained reasonable excuse to failing to provide on medical grounds.
Margate MC – R v OV

Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue in writing after non-service of CCTV and custody record. Client disputed the breath test procedure and could not recall the officer completing the MG DD/A.
Wimbledon MC – R v ZB

Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the case before trial after prosecution failed to serve initial disclosure of unused material and failed to comply with directions of the Court. Client was a Hungarian national who was not provided with an interpreter for the breath specimen procedure.
Coventry MC – R v LS

David Houldcroft, with instructions from Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) successfully argued that there were special reasons not to impose a mandatory 12 month driving ban. Instead, the Court disqualified the client for just one month. The client had driven out of fear for his personal safety after being assaulted by males outside a nightclub.
Birmingham MC – R v MC

David Houldcroft persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the case at the first hearing after the police failed to make the initial evidence available. The client was challenging the breath test procedure as he could not recall the MG DD/A being completed and was putting the prosecution to strict proof as to evidence of driving.
Ipswich MC – R v JB

Jay Lemosa, with instructions from Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) successfully opposed an application to adjourn the trial after the police office was unable to attend Court due to being on a training day. The client was challenging machine reliability and the operator had failed to sign the MG DD/A breath test booklet.
Newcastle Upon Tyne MC – R v KH

Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the case before trial. The client had been charged with failing to provide a breath specimen but the printout showed a mouth alcohol error message which demonstrated that there was an issue with the machine. Ian Hudson, in-house lawyer set the groundwork in place by clearly setting out all the issues at the first hearing.
Wigan MC – R v OG

Tom Longstaff, bronze level lawyer (with instructions from Sandra Cooper) successfully opposed an attempt by the prosecution to adjourn the case after the police officer failed to attend the trial due to illness. The client was putting the prosecution to strict proof as to evidence of driving.
City of London MC – R v EA

In a case involving Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer), charges were discontinued before trial after written representations were made that it was not in the public interest to prosecute. The police used a taser gun without justification and had requested a blood sample when there were medical reasons for not doing so on a failing to provide charge.
Reading Crown Court – R v AF

Philip Lucas (with instructions from Laura Heywood) successfully defended a charge after the prosecution failed to serve legible copies of the performance history and maintenance records required by the defence expert to comment on machine reliability. No evidence offered after the prosecution unsuccessfully applied to adjourn the case.
Willesden MC – R v CS

The advocate lawyer persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the case after the first hearing. The police had taken a breath sample unlawfully where there were medical reasons for moving to blood or urine. The client suffered from asthma and started to feel dizzy after attempting to blow into the breath test device and had to lie down.
Camberwell Green MC – R v JL

Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) made written representations that there been inadequate disclosure of CCTV. The copy provided had sound with no images. As a result of pursuing these disclosure failings the prosecution discontinued the case. The client was challenging the breath test procedure.
Derby MC – R v JH

David Houldcroft (with instructions from reviewing lawyer Laura Heywood) invited the prosecution to adjourn the case due to non-service of the CCTV. After successfully opposing the adjournment he persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence. The client was challenging the breath test procedure.
Horsham MC – R v CH

George Symes bronze level lawyer (with instructions from reviewing lawyer Sandra Cooper) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the case at trial after late service of the CCTV and failing to provide unused material. The client was challenging the reliability of the breath test device.
Cheltenham MC – R v RJ

Philip Lucas (with instructions from reviewing lawyer Sandra Cooper) successfully opposed an application by the prosecution to adjourn the trial after they failed to provide a consent form for a blood sample with a number of outstanding problems with continuity of the blood sample. The client disputed that he was fit to consent to a blood sample at the hospital.
North Somerset MC – R v JD

Neil Whittle, bronze level lawyer (with instructions from reviewing lawyer Sandra Cooper) successfully persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence after the main prosecution witness failed to attend the trial. The client denied driving the vehicle.
Cannock MC – R v LB

David Houldcroft (with instructions from reviewing lawyer Sandra Cooper) successfully defended the case after persuading the prosecution to offer no evidence once they failed to serve the interview tape. Initially the prosecution were going to substitute a new charge of drunk in charge on the date of trial until David threatened to seek wasted costs and argue abuse of process. The client was putting the prosecution to strict proof as to the identity of the driver.
Margate MC – R v PM

Jay Lemosa (with instructions from reviewing lawyer Laura Heywood) successfully opposed an application by the prosecution to adjourn the trial after the prosecution failed to serve a witness statement from the officer in the case and the operator of the breath test machine failed to attend Court. As a result, the prosecution offered no evidence. The client was challenging the breath test procedure and could not recall the officer completing the MG DD/A breath test booklet.
Chesterfield MC – R v DJ

David Houldcroft (with instructions from Laura Heywood) invited the prosecution to offer no evidence after they were refused an adjournment following non-disclosure of CCTV. The client was disputing the urine sample procedure.
Uxbridge MC – R v BM

Sherbanu Suliman (in house lawyer) with instructions from Sandra Cooper successfully opposed an adjournment request from the prosecution who were in breach of disclosure duties. The police had not responded to a request for CCTV and had failed to serve initial disclosure of unused material. No evidence was offered after the adjournment was refused. The issue in the case was the breath test procedure and machine reliability.
Bromley MC – R v AA

Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) made written representations to the CPS that there had been not disclosure of unused material, CCTV, body worn footage and pocket note book. As a result of pursuing these disclosure failings the prosecution discontinued the case. The client was challenging the reliability of the breath test device.
Willesden MC – R v MD

Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) requested CCTV and dash cam to assess whether there was sufficient evidence of the vehicle being driven. This material undermined the assertion by the officer that the car had been driven. The prosecution were persuaded to discontinue the case before the trial.
Bristol MC – R v FS

Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) with assistance from Giles Pengelly (bronze level lawyer) successfully persuaded the prosecution to discontinue charges before the trial after serving a skeleton argument setting out a number of issues with the breath test procedure including the need to issue a statutory warning on a second occasion after an abortive breath test. The client was awarded costs.
Basingstoke MC – R v DT

The advocate lawyer with instructions from Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) successfully applied to exclude the CCTV and MG DD/A breath test booklet at trial as the breath test sample had been taken some 9 minutes after the statutory warning had been given. The client was challenging the breath test procedure.
St Albans Crown Court – R v YM

Jay Lemosa (in house lawyer) with instructions from Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) successfully appealed against a conviction for being drunk in charge. An expert report confirmed the Defendant would have been below the prescribed limit at the time he intended to drive.
Romford MC – R v JM

Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) successfully persuaded the prosecution to discontinue charges before the trial after the police failed to comply with disclosure requests including unused material, CCTV, analytical pack, details of laboratory accreditation, the last 3 rounds of proficiency testing and HORT5 medical consent form. Client was challenging the continuity of evidence in respect of a blood sample.
Kings Lynn MC – R v CG

Jay Lemosa (in house lawyer) with instructions from Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) successfully applied to dismiss a drink driving charge on a blood sample after they failed to serve an SFR/1 report and various documentary evidence. The Defendant was testing continuity (the chain of custody of the blood sample).
Oxford MC – R v TC

Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the charges before the trial after the prosecution failed to provide material to allow the defence to check continuity on a blood sample including the analytical pack, details of laboratory accreditation, and the last 3 rounds of proficiency testing.
Staines MC – R v MD

Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the case before trial due to failure to comply with disclosure requests including unused material and CCTV which was necessary allow a defence expert to comment on whether the client’s medical condition caused him to stumble. The client was challenging the reliability of the evidential breath test device.
Basildon MC – R v MM

Jay Lemosa (with instructions from Sandra Cooper) successfully opposed an adjournment request from the prosecution after police officers had failed to attend Court. The client was challenging the reliability of the evidential breath test device.
Croydon MC – R v RN

Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the case against the client after it was noted that three samples were taken (by law only two samples can be taken) and there was more than the maximum 15% breath difference between the samples. The client was challenging the reliability of the breath test device.
Wimbledon MC – R v ML

Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the charges after they failed to serve any evidence in the case including unused material. The client was pursuing a defence based on post driving alcohol consumption.
Brighton MC – R v VP

Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the case before trial after serving an expert report commenting on the reliability of the evidential breath test device. The breath specimens were unreliable due to a mouth alcohol error message that appeared to be incorrect as too much time had elapsed since the last drink for the client to have brought up alcohol from her stomach.
Yeovil MC – R v MS

Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the case after persuading them there was no realistic prospect of a conviction. The client was testing the prosecution case on whether they could prove the identity of the driver. Also the police had given the Defendant an assurance there would be no further action before bringing charges.
Taunton MC – R v ER

Giles Pengelly (instructed by Sandra Cooper) successfully persuaded the Court to dismiss the case after the officer could not explain the delays in the breath test procedure and accepted that sections of the form had not been completed. The officer had also given inconsistent evidence about having seen the vehicle being driven.
Bexley MC – R v MS

Jeanine Harry (instructed by Sandra Cooper) persuaded the Magistrates to find special reasons against a driving ban due to the short distance driven. The client had driven no more than 7 yards and the Magistrates were satisfied the client had no intention of driving any further.
Barkingside MC – R v AB

Eugene McLaughlin opposed an adjournment at the first hearing where the prosecution did not have a file available to proceed with the case. The Court agreed to dismiss the charge.
Teeside MC – R v LR

Ian Hudson (instructed by Laura Heywood) persuaded the prosecution to adjourn the case for them to consider discontinuing the case after the defence expert found a ‘check simulator gas’ error message on the printout. The police had failed to move to a blood sample as required by the breath specimen booklet.
Highbury MC – R v KM

Laura Heywood, reviewing lawyer persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the case after the police failed to serve CCTV and unused material. The client was challenging the breath test procedure.
High Wycombe MC – R v SI

The advocate lawyer (instructed by Laura Heywood) successfully defended a fail to provide charge with an expert witness Dr Robinson. The client had a needle phobia. Instead of the police referring the client’s medical issues to a doctor the police charged the client with failing to provide.
Telford MC – R v HB

The case was discontinued after the first hearing where Micaila Williams (platinum lawyer) with Sandra Cooper as the reviewing lawyer persuasively set out all the issues in the case. The issues in the case were whether valid consent was taken for a blood sample at the hospital. The client was not in a fit medical state and therefore the police should have asked for permission after the client had been discharged. There was also an issue on whether there was sufficient evidence to prove the identity of the driver.
Barnsley MC– R v AP

Laura Heywood (instructed by Sandra Cooper) successfully defended the case by opposing an adjournment where the operator of the breath test device failed to attend the trial. The client had burped before the breath test procedure and the defence to be pursued was that the officer failed to eliminate contamination from mouth alcohol by waiting 20 minutes.
Highbury MC – R v DP

Sandra Cooper, reviewing lawyer persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the case after the police failed to serve CCTV and unused material. The client was challenging the breath test procedure and requiring the prosecution to prove the identity of the driver.
Bexley MC – R v KN

Sandra Cooper, reviewing lawyer persuaded the prosecution to discontinue before the trial. The client was charged with drink with excess alcohol. The issues in the case were fitness to consent and the chain of custody of the blood sample.
Bexley MC – R v SG

Laura Heywood, reviewing lawyer succeeded in persuading the prosecution to discontinue the case before trial. The issue was the reliability of the evidential breath test device.
Bristol MC – R v CH

The issue in the case was whether the police took more than the permitted two breath samples. There was also an issue about whether the police could prove the identity of the driver. The case was discontinued after the first hearing following representation by David Leathley, bronze level lawyer.
Ipswich MC – R v NJ

The issue in the case was machine reliability. Jay Lemosa, gold panel lawyer successfully persuaded the Magistrates to dismiss the charges after the prosecution failed to serve CCTV, training log and maintenance records after a disclosure order was obtained at an earlier hearing. Laura Heywood was the reviewing lawyer.
Cheltenham MC – R v RN

Chris Filer platinum level lawyer (instruct by Sandra Cooper) successfully opposed an application by the prosecution to adjourn the trial after the prosecution witness failed to attend the second listed trial having attended the first trial. The prosecution offered no evidence.
Highbury Corner – R v CM

Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) successfully persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the case after the first hearing when client was represented by Richard Berman, platinum level lawyer. The issues in the case were machine reliability and denial as to driving the vehicle.
Mansfield MC – R v RS

The case was discontinued after the first hearing after the client was represented at the first hearing by Mark Stocks, bronze level lawyer. The issues in the case were fitness to be detained and post driving alcohol. The reviewing lawyer was Laura Heywood.
Medway MC – R v DM

The case was discontinued after the first hearing when the client was represented by Eugene McLaughlin (platinum level lawyer). The issues in the case were whether the interview could be used after the police failed to notify the client of the right to speak to a lawyer on the phone. It was also noted that error messages appeared to be displayed on the evidential breath test device which may have required the police to move to blood or urine. The reviewing lawyer was Laura Heywood.
Cambridge MC – R v MP

Philip Lucas, gold panel lawyer (instructed by Laura Heywood reviewing lawyer) successfully persuaded the Court to disallow evidence which was served the day before trial so the police were unable to present evidence of the breath specimens. The issues in the case were machine reliability.
Willesden MC – R v NS

The issues in the case were proof of driving. CCTV had not been served and an interview at the roadside was challenged on the grounds there was no caution and no interview should have taken place until the client was taken to the police station. Richard Berman, platinum level lawyer instructed by Sandra Cooper, reviewing lawyer successfully persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the case at trial, skeleton arguments having been served by the reviewing lawyer in advance of trial placing pressure on the CPS to reconsider the case.
Truro MC – R v KS

Sandra Cooper, reviewing lawyer persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the case before trial. The issues in the case were proof of driving, fitness to consent to blood sample and failure to provide the Defendant with a sample of blood.
Dudley MC – R v MC

The client was charged with failing to provide. Micaila Williams, platinum level lawyer successfully persuaded the Court to deal with the client on the basis there was no evidence of driving after reviewing CCTV evidence at trial. This meant client was eligible for a shorter discretionary ban instead of a mandatory ban. Instead of a starting point 18 to 24 month ban on a driver basis the client received a 6 month ban. The reviewing lawyer was Laura Heywood.
Leamington Spa MC – R v KF

The client was charged with failing to provide. Dr Robinson provided an expert report confirming that the client had a reasonable excuse for failing to provide a breath sample due to his mental state. The case was discontinued before trial once the expert report had been sent to the prosecution. Laura Heywood was the reviewing lawyer.
Nottingham MC – R v ZI

Laura Heywood, reviewing lawyer persuaded the prosecution to drop the charges before the trial. The client was facing a drink driving allegation. The issue in the case was machine reliability and contamination from acid reflux.
Stevenage MC – R v CG

Richard Berman instructed by Laura Heywood successfully objected to the police relying on the SFR/2 forensic report on a blood sample due to being served out of time. The client was charged with drink driving on a blood sample.
Stratford MC – R v NL

The client was charged with being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle. Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) successfully persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the case before trial on the grounds the statutory defence applied because there was no intention to drive the vehicle whilst alcohol remained above the prescribed limit.
Portsmouth MC – R v RS

The charges were discontinued before trial on a drunk in charge matter after representations by Laura Heywood, reviewing lawyer. The client was staying in a hotel and went to his car to charge his vehicle. It was successfully argued that the client had no intention of driving accordingly the statutory defence applied of no likelihood of the vehicle being driven with alcohol above the prescribed limit.
Swansea MC – R v GE

The client was charged with drink driving in which a blood sample was provided at the hospital. The arresting office failed to note on MGDDC or statements the named medical professional in immediate charge of the defendants care and the doctor was not notified that blood was to be taken. The police later spoke to Doctor on duty who checked the records and confirmed he had no recollection of being notified and no note was found on the med records. Sandra Cooper, the reviewing lawyer made written representations to the prosecution on two occasions setting out the effect of breaching s.9 RTA 1988 protection for hospital patients. The issue was also raised in the defence case statement. The charges were discontinued two days before trial with costs awarded.
Thanet MC – R v LB

The client had initially been investigated for drink driving which was not pursued after the client gave a no comment interview. The prosecution proceeded with fail to stop and fail to report and driving without due care. The Crown served footage of the defendant parking his car in the road where the incident occurred. The footage later showed the defendant returning to his vehicle and driving off at what would appear to be the relevant time. Sandra Cooper the reviewing lawyer noted that 37 seconds of footage was missing between the defendant’s car leaving the parking space and a unidentified vehicle leaving the road. It was also noted that there was no statement confirming that the time on the CCTV was accurate. A defence case statement was set out the issues with the continuity of the footage. The case was discontinued the day before trial.
Folkestone MC – R v BA

The client was charged after providing a blood sample at a hospital despite being unfit to consent. Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) provided detailed written and oral instructions to the lawyer Richard Berman. The charge was dismissed due to disclosure issues when the officer accepted in cross examination that he did record the incident on BWV which contradicted what the prosecutor had stated earlier in Court that there was no BWV during pre trial disclosure issues.
Colchester MC – R v RC

The issue in the case included the client’s fitness to be detained at the police station and fitness for interview after being involved in a road traffic accident. The officer could not attend who conducted the procedure, therefore Jay Lemosa (Gold panel lawyer) with instructions from Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) made strenuous representations opposing the Crowns application to adjourn which the judge refused. This left the CPS with no option but to offer no evidence at the trial. Case dismissed.
Highbury Corner – T v CP

The client was charged with failing to provide. A medical report was obtained to comment on whether the refusal may have been caused by the client’s mental state. The expert required the CCTV from the breath test room to confirm her opinion. No video evidence was supplied by the prosecution therefore Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) made written representations for discontinuance on disclosure grounds. Subsequently the prosecution sent a notice of discontinuance before trial.
Manchester and Salford MC – R v LF

The client was charged with drink with excess alcohol. The matter was listed for trial and the issues in the case were machine reliability and incompatible roadside breath level. The prosecution failed to serve the CCTV, custody record or schedule of unused material. On the date of trial, Umar Shahzad (bronze level lawyer) instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) successful opposed an attempt by the prosecution to adjourn the case to produce the evidence. The charges were dismissed and costs awarded.
Romford MC – R v RS

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. The issues in the case were proof of driving, mistakes on the breath test procedure and failure to give statutory warning. The prosecution failed to serve the MG DD/A breath test booklet and the body worn video evidence directed by the Court. Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) sent two reminders to the prosecution putting them on notice of the failure. The charges were discontinued prior to trial.
Salisbury MC – R v AJ

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol in blood. Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) noted there was an inconsistency between the amount of blood tested by the prosecution laboratory and the amount taken by the police doctor. After sending written representations to the prosecution the case was discontinued before trial.
Warwick Crown Court – R v OO

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. A report had been obtained from the defence expert on the functioning of the evidential breath test device. There were ‘short fuel cell response times’ which raised concerns about the reliability of the machine. Jay Lemosa (Gold panel lawyer) instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution not to proceed with the case on appeal.
Taunton Crown Court – R v NB

The client was charged with failing to provide. It was successfully argued on appeal by Nicholas Fridd (bronze level lawyer) instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) that as the client had no intention of driving there were special reasons not to impose a driving ban. The Judge decided not to impose any penalty points and costs were awarded.
Oxford MC – R v CR

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. There were numerous procedural errors identified on the evidential breath test procedure. Eugene McLoughlin (platinum level lawyer) instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) cross examined the police officer at trial who could not recall giving the statutory warning. After a half time submission of no case to answer the charges were dismissed with costs awarded.
Barkingside MC – R v LW

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. Richard Berman (Gold panel lawyer) instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the case after failing to serve an SFR/2 (streamlined forensic report) to prove the blood sample. Costs were awarded.
Uxbridge MC – R v RC

The client was initially charged with driving under the influence of alcohol (section 4 Road Traffic Act 1988) but then on the date of trial the prosecution amended the charge to driving with excess alcohol (section 5) which required evidence of the breath specimen. The prosecution attempted to use a written note of the breath level made by the defence lawyer on the case management form as evidence of the breath specimen as police officers were not present to produce the printout. Richard Berman (Gold panel lawyer) instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) successfully opposed this by relying on case law which prevents the case management form being used against the client.
Bexley Heath MC – R v SM

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. Jay Lemosa (gold panel lawyer) instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) successfully applied to exclude the blood specimen at trial as the prosecution had no evidence to refute the defence case that the police had wrongly informed the client that she only had two days to test her own blood sample.
Huddersfield MC – R v SM

The Defendant was charged with failing to provide breath specimen. A defence expert witness confirmed there were medical reasons why a breath sample could not be provided. William McGill (bronze level Barrister) instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) successfully persuaded the prosecution to withdraw the charges before the commencement of the trial.
Highbury MC – R v JB

The Defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol. Legal argument was presented by Jay Lemosa with instructions from Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) that the client was unlawfully required to provide a breath sample due to not being provided with a translator. The charges were dropped before the trial.
Peterborough MC – R v DT

The Defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol. A blood specimen was provided by the client. The prosecution failed to provide a streamlined forensic report SFR/2 and HORT/5 (record of blood blood sample). Phillip Lucas (gold panel lawyer) with instructions from Sandra Cooper invited the prosecution to adjourn the case and successfully opposed the application resulting in the prosecution offering no evidence.
Beverley MC – R v ND

The Defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol. This issues in the case were machine reliability and failure to carry out the breath test procedure correctly. The reviewing lawyer was Laura Heywood. The charges were discontinued before trial.
Cambridge MC – R v HB

The Defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol. The issues were machine reliability and failure to comply with home office guidance on switching off police radios. Jay Lemosa (instructed by Laura Heywood reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to apply to adjourn the case due to lack of disclosure. This was successfully opposed resulting in no evidence offered.
Stratford MC – R v OA

The Defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol. The issues were machine reliability and duress of circumstances. The client had driven away from a nightclub in fear for his safety. Richard Berman (gold panel lawyer) instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence at trial after they had agreed a statement supporting the client’s version of events.
Northampton MC – R v KC

The Defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol. The issue was machine reliability and procedural correctness of the breath test procedure. The operator of the device failed to attend trial. The advocate lawyer instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) successfully opposed an attempt by the prosecution to adjourn the case to enable the prosecution to attend.
Willesden MC – R v SR

The Defendant was charged with driving excess alcohol in urine. The client had been given a sample of urine to be tested but the officer failed to discard a sample first. Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) successfully persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the charge before trial.
Croydon MC – R v JM

The Defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol in breath. The prosecution failed to serve CCTV or printout or breath specimen booklet. Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the case before trial.
Stratford MC – R v TD

The Defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol. The issues in the case were the failure of the police to complete the MG DD/A breath specimen booklet. The reviewing lawyer Laura Heywood successfully persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the charges before trial.
Ealing MC – R v ZK

The Defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol in breath. The reviewing lawyer was Sandra Cooper. The issues in the case were machine reliability and failure of the police to complete the MG DD/A. The charges were discontinued before trial.
Carlisle MC – R v DK

The prosecution agreed to discontinue the drink driving charge before trial after written representations from Sandra Cooper with a plea bargain to drunk in charge. There was no video evidence supporting a continuous line of sight when the officers claim to have seen the client driving. After representation at Court by Ian Hudson (platinum lawyer), the client received 10 penalty points Instead of an automatic driving ban.
Luton MC – R v CW

The client was charged with drink driving. The issue was machine reliability. At the trial the advocate lawyer with instructions from Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue charges after conceding that they had failed to serve CCTV or MG DD/A.
Wimbledon MC R v MB

The client was charged with drink driving and fail to stop and report. The issue in the case was machine reliability and procedural correctness. The prosecution dropped the charges following the first hearing after Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) made written representations concerning failure to disclosure video evidence.
Carlisle MC – R v XL

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. The issue in the case was whether a translator should have been provided. The case was discontinued before trial after a skeleton argued was served on the prosecution by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer).
Romford MC – R v AU

The case was discontinued before trial. The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol and the issue in the case was the failure to call a translator. The case was discontinued before trial after issues were raised by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) concerning disclosure failings by the prosecution in particular non service of unused material.
Bexley MC – R v MC

The Defendant was charged with fail to provide breath specimen. The reviewing lawyer was Sandra Cooper. The issue in the case was medical reasons due to the client having a panic attack and was seen by the police doctor shortly afterwards. The prosecution failed to provide CCTV from the breath test procedure. After written representations, the charges were discontinued before trial and costs awarded.
St Albans MC – R v DC

The client was charged with failing to provide a breath specimen. A skeleton argument was served on the prosecution by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) setting out the defence, namely that as the client had been diagnosed with Aspergers an appropriate adult should have been called to attend for the breath test procedure after refusal. The case was discontinued before trial.
Barnsley MC – R v LH

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. The hip flask defence was raised (post driving alcohol consumption). After representations by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) the case was discontinued before trial.
Maidstone MC – R v DE

The client was charged with failing to provide. The defence was raised namely inability to provide due to mental state. Disclosure failings were highlighted by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) and the charges were discontinued before trial.
Staines MC – R v SR

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. The issues in the case were machine reliability and procedural correctness. At trial the advocate lawyer instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the case as no working copy of the CCTV from the breath test procedure was made available at trial. Case dismissed and costs awarded.
Basingstoke MC – R v SP

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol in blood. Fitness to consent and failure to provide own sample for analysis were in dispute. After receiving a comprehensive report from the defence expert and following written representations to the prosecution by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) the charges were discontinued before trial.
Reading MC – R v NL

The client was charged with failing to provide a breath specimen. The prosecution failed to comply with disclosure duties by not serving unused material. After written submissions from Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) the charges were discontinued before trial.
Stratford MC – R v RD

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. The issues were fitness for detention, continuity of blood sample and evidence of driving. Eugene McLaughlin (platinum lawyer) instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) successfully opposed the prosecution application to adjourn the trial after failing to serve an SFR/2 report concerning the blood sample and failed to arrange the attendance of the analyst. The prosecution offered no evidence with costs awarded.
Stratford MC – R v EK

Richard Berman (gold panel lawyer) instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) successfully argued that special reasons applied for not imposing a disqualification on a failing to provide charge as the client had asked for a glass of water before undertaking the breath test which was refused by the police. Instead of the mandatory driving ban the Judge was persuaded to impose penalty points meaning the client could continue driving.
Cannock MC – R V MI

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. A skeleton argument was sent to the prosecution by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) setting out legal arguments including entrapment by the police officers who asked the client to move his vehicle, unlawful strip search, and mistakes in the breath test procedure. The charges were discontinued before trial.
Medway MC – R v AK

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. The breath test procedure had to be done again but the officer forgot to repeat the statutory warning which is a legal requirement. Philip Lucas (gold panel lawyer) instructed by Sandra Cooper successfully defended the case at trial after presenting legal argument. The case was dismissed with costs awarded to the client.
Colchester MC – R v GU

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. Jay Lemosa instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) successfully opposed an attempt to adjourn a trial date after the witness who allegedly saw the client driving failed to attend Court. The case was dismissed with costs awarded to the client.
Cambridge MC – R v DF

The defence were unable to serve an expert report as the prosecution had failed to serve the custody record, which contained pre-release readings. The expert confirmed that client may have been either above or below the prescribed limit dependant on his rate of elimination, which could have been ascertained with the information in the custody record. Philip Lucas (instructed by Laura Heywood) submitted that it would be unfair to allow the case to continue to trial. The prosecution accordingly applied to adjourn agreeing that the defence should be able to access an expert report and there was unfairness. Mr Lucas opposed the application which the Court refused resulting in the prosecution offering no evidence.
Staines MC – R v SC

The advocate lawyer (instructed by Laura Heywood) at trial successfully persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the case at trial after the police had failed to serve CCTV and custody record. The client had complained about inappropriate physical contact by police, and it was also argued that she was not fit for detention due to acute earache. There were also issues concerning the reliability of the breath test device and mistake on the breath test procedure.
Harrogate MC – R v GS

The client was charged with driving with failing to provide a blood specimen. Chris Filer, platinum level lawyer (instructed by Laura Heywood) successful applied to dismiss the case after trial as expert evidence confirmed that the officer should not have moved to a blood sample as the problem with the breath test device was caused by operator error. The officer had also failed to refer a medical issue (needle phobia) to a doctor.
Peterborough MC – R v KD

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. Chris Filer (instructed by Sandra Cooper) successfully opposed an attempt by the prosecution to adjourn the trial after the police witness failed to attend Court. The prosecution offered no evidence.
Uxbridge MC – R v AT

The client was prosecuted for being drunk in charge. Richard Berman (instructed by Sandra Cooper) successfully argued there was no intention of driving the vehicle. Charges were dismissed and the client was awarded defence costs.
Poole MC – R v JC

The client was charged with failing to provide a breath sample. Jay Lemosa (instructed by Sandra Cooper) successfully persuaded the Court that the client had medical grounds for failing to provide after hearing evidence from a defence expert instructed by the firm that her coughing was caused by a chest condition.
Highbury Corner MC – R v CB

The client was charged with failing to provide breath specimen but had no recollection of being asked to provide the specimen. The case was discontinued on the date of trial after Richard Berman (instructed by Sandra Cooper) identified numerous disclosure failings including CCTV, custody record and details of the nurse who assessed the client.
Wimbledon MC – R v FB

The client was charged for driving with excess alcohol. The reviewing lawyer was Sandra Cooper. The case was discontinued before trial after issues were raised about the strength of the evidence and insufficient evidence of driving.
Stratford MC – R v KS

The client was charged for driving with excess alcohol. There were issues around the client’s mental fitness to understand the breath test procedures and the statutory warning. Before the date of trial Eugene McLaughlin (reviewing lawyer) made written representations for the case to be discontinued as the prosecution had failed to service unused material or CCTV in advance of trial. The CPS dropped the case on 12/03/20 resulting in the client not having to attend Court.
Kirklees MC – R v JP

The client was charged for driving with excess alcohol. There were issues concerning the reasons for stopping the vehicle and machine reliability. Laura Heywood (instructed by Sandra Cooper) successfully opposed an adjournment request by the prosecution after police witness statements were not served properly in advance of trial. Charges dismissed.
Luton Crown Court – R v DP

The client was charged with failing to provide breath specimen. Richard Berman (instructed by Laura Heywood) successfully appealed a driving ban. The client had provided one breath sample below the prescribed limit but had been unable to provide a second sample. It was argued that the fact one sample was below meant the client posed no risk to other road users and amounted to special reasons. This legal argument was accepted by the Court.

Spend just 5 to 10 minutes with us answering a few questions about your case and give yourself the possibility of avoiding a criminal record and driving ban.

Free Telephone Helpline – we are open for calls any day until 9pm on 0800 044 3730

Call Our Experts Now

Free Helpline:
0800 044 3730

Spend just 5 to 10 minutes with us answering a few questions about your case and give yourself the possibility of avoiding a criminal record and driving ban.

We are open for calls any day until 9pm

Contact Form

Click here to go to our
On-Line Contact Form

Or click here to Email for free advice now.

Selection of Cases

Staines MC – R v JH

Willesden MC – R v PW

Swindon MC – R v HB

Bristol MC – R v AS

Leeds MC – R v JM

Peterborough MC – R v TA

Peterborough MC – R v SB

Derby MC – R v SG

Ipswich MC – R v GA

Reading MC – R v OT

Swansea MC – R v RG

Bromley MC – R v NP

Willesden MC – R v KT

R v BM – York MC

Birmingham Crown Court – R v AW

Staines MC – R v DH

Peterlee MC – R v JD

Croydon MC – R v PH

Maidstone MC – R v KM

Swindon MC – R v BQ

Stevenage MC – R v JF

Chelmsford MC – R v JB

Bristol MC – R v FD

Yeovil MC – R v MC

Bexley MC – R v RM

Croydon MC – R v SJ

Sheffield MC – R v SK

Reading MC – R v SS

Dudley MC – R v TD

Kidderminster MC – R v TB

Boston MC – R v TG

Croydon MC – R v AO

Poole MC – R v GN

Bromley MC – R v KH

Uxbridge MC – R v AB

Chesterfield MC – R v AH

Stevenage MC – R v MP

City of London MC – R v BF

Folkestone MC – R v CD

Highbury MC – R v SR

Salisbury MC – R v JC

Derby MC – R v AA

Bromley MC – R v DR

Cannock MC – R v AN

Northampton MC – R v RS

Cardiff MC – R v JV

Cheltenham MC – R v WF

Reading MC – R v RD

Northampton MC – R v HE

Kirklees MC – R v TK

York MC – R v JW

Bristol MC – R v ZA

Northampton MC – R v NS

Leicester MC – R v JB

Highbury Corner MC – R v LR

York MC – R v RF

Willesden MC – R v DS

York MC – R v OR

North Tyneside MC – R v LH

Willesden MC – R v SL

Stevenage MC – R v AS

Wimbledon MC – R v SG

Uxbridge MC – R v SD

St Albans MC – R v VP

Thames MC – R v MQ

Haverfordwest MC – R v JL

Snaresbrook Crown Court – R v MS

Birmingham MC – R v BM

Sheffield MC – R v GS

Tameside MC – R v PH

Bromley MC – R v DM

Bromley MC – R v RT

Cambridge MC – R v SN

Southend MC – R v JC

Croydon MC – R v JR

Maidstone MC – R v SZ

Stevenage MC – R v DT

Uxbridge MC – R v BM

Swansea MC – R v TJ