Our Blog Page

The articles below describe some of the firms’ know how acquired over several years as one of the very few, if not the only exclusive drink driving practice in England and Wales. On request, we will send you a password to access this valuable resource which will give you a much better insight into how to go about safeguarding your license or minimising any punishment imposed by the Court.

The ‘Gold Service’

The Gold Service

One of our lawyers on the Gold service Philip Lucas won all of his case for the firm in 2015, 2016 and 2017.

If you choose to be represented by Phillip then based on his success rate as at 01/09/18 there is a 9 in 10 chance you will keep your driving license and avoid a criminal record.

He uses tried and tested methods which involve highlighting failures in prosecution disclosure duties.

Most drink driving cases are won this way but many solicitors lack the necessary experience and will tell you there is no choice but to plead guilty.

A sample of these cases are set out below.

R v AP Stratford MC 

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol s.5 RTA 1988. Issues in case were machine reliability and radio interference. The defence called Professor Makin, an expert in evidential breath test instruments (EBTI) who gave evidence that the EBTI was unreliable due to a long purge anomaly. Dr Thrift, an expert in electrical engineering also gave evidence that the EBTI could have been affected by radio interference caused by the operator’s police radio. After hearing evidence from both defence experts with no rebuttal from any prosecution experts District Judge Connelly dismissed the charge.

R v SR Feltham MC 

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol s.5 RTA 1988. Issues in case were machine reliability. Dr Trafford provided a widmark report indicating that there was a possible long purge anomaly on the printout and that CCTV from the breath test room would be required to time the gap between the readings. As a result of the non disclosure of the CCTV on the date of trial the Court agreed to exclude all evidence under s.78 PACE 1984. Case dismissed.

R v MW Redhill MC 

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol s.5 RTA 1988. Issues in the case were machine reliability. The prosecution failed to comply with their disclosure duties by not serving a s.3 letter, CCTV, an incomplete MG DD/A, a schedule of unused material without the Defendant’s name and incorrect URN. The prosecutor conceded they could not proceed to trial without adequate disclosure and applied to adjourn the trial. This was successfully opposed using CPS v Picton and other adjournment case authorities and the prosecution offered no evidence (in line with Chapter 1 CPS disclosure manual and para 148 Disclosure Review 2014). Case dismissed.

R v MP St Albans MC 

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol s.5 RTA 1988. Issues in the case were machine reliability. The officer in the case failed to attend trial and did not produce a medical certificate confirming his unfitness to attend Court. The prosecution applied to adjourn which was successfully opposed using CPS v Picton. The prosecution offered no evidence. Case dismissed.

R v SA Barkingside MC 

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol s.5 RTA 1988. Issues in the case were machine reliability. The prosecution were represented by William Marshall QC. The officer in cross examination accepted that the CCTV from the breath test room should have been entered on the mg6c schedule of unused material and that neither the officer or the prosecuting lawyer had reviewed this evidence. The prosecution declined to apply to adjourn and invited the Court to accede to a submission of no case to answer. Case dismissed.

R v VW Aldershot MC 

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol s.5 RTA 1988. Issues in the case were machine reliability. The unused material was defective with missing items as CCTV was requested but not served, incomplete MG DD/A and missing statements. The prosecution accepted the CCTV should have been served earlier and therefore no evidence offered. Case dismissed.

R v RS Worcester MC 

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol s.5 RTA 1988. Issues in the case were machine reliability. The schedule of unused material was incomplete, two witness statements were unserved, no response to DCS under s.7 CPIA 1996, non compliance with disclosure order under s.8 CPIA 1996, late service of MG DD/A and prosecution expert report. Prosecutor concedes initial disclosure under s.3 is incomplete. Court agrees that prosecution have not complied with disclosure duties on basis of failure to comply with s.8 order. Prosecution application to vacate successfully opposed using CPS v Picton and Balogun v DPP. No evidence offered. Case dismissed.

R v SM Taunton MC 

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol s.5 RTA 1988. The issues in the case was the failure to switch off police radios to comply with Home office circular 39/1989. The prosecution served police radio activity reports on the date of trial but conceded that CCTV from the breath test room had been deleted after a request to preserve this material by the defence. The prosecution applied to adjourn the case to comply with disclosure duties which was successfully opposed relying upon CPS v Picton and other cases. The prosecution offered no evidence. Case dismissed.

R v TT Westminster MC 

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol s.5 RTA 1988. The issues in the case was the failure of the police to arrange an interpreter. The prosecution fails to comply with initial disclosure under s.3 until the date of trial, an incomplete mg6c schedule of unused material was served and the DVD of the intox procedure would not operate. The prosecution applied to adjourn to remedy disclosure failings which was successfully opposed under CPS v Picton. The prosecution offered no evidence. Case dismissed.

R v RH Blackburn MC 

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol s.5 RTA 1988. The issues in the case were no statutory warning, evidence of driving and fitness to be detained. The breath test operator failed to attend Court. The prosecution unsuccessfully applied to adjourn the case for the officer to attend as the printout could not be adduced as it had been controverted in writing under s.16(4) RTOA 1988. No evidence offered. Case dismissed.

R v WS Cheltenham MC 

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol s.5 RTA 1988. The issues in the case were no statutory warning and non completion of the MG DD/A. The statement of the operator was served less than 7 days before trial and was therefore inadmissible as it had been rejected by the defence. The prosecution applied to adjourn the case as the operator had failed to attend Court. The printout was inadmissible as this had been controverted under s.16(4) RTOA 1988. The prosecution nonetheless indicated they were ready to proceed to trial. All evidence excluded under s.78 PACE 1984. Prosecution offered no evidence.

R v AK – Poole MC 

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol s.5 RTA 1988. The issues in the case were non completion of the MG DD/A and fitness for detention. The prosecution served a schedule of unused material on 30/08/17 (dated 19/07/17 some 6 weeks earlier). Incomplete MG DD/A was also served with no printout. There was no s.7(A)5 CPIA 1996 response to the DCS served 31/08/17. Then it transpired there was a second schedule of unused material which nad never been served and contained no endorsements from the CPS. The items had never been received by prosecution counsel. The prosecution accepted being in breach of disclosure duties and applied to adjourn which was refused after the defence relied upon CPS v Picton. Prosecution offered no evidence.

R v ER – Loughborough MC 

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol s.5 RTA 1988. Issues in the case were machine reliability and procedural errors namely police radio interference, failure to ask questions on contamination in MG DD/A and possible error messages due to evidential breath test procedure being repeated. At trial, the operator sought to rely upon MG DD/A and printout to refresh his memory under s.139 CJA 2003 which was successfully opposed as the prosecution could not account for why the original was not available. The prosecution offered no evidence after an adjournment request to obtain the originals was refused. No attempt was made to ask the operator to recall the evidential specimen procedure.

R v SR – Bristol MC 

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol s.5 RTA 1988. Issues in the case were statutory warning and prosecution was being put to strict proof as to evidence of driving. No evidence or primary disclosure under s.3 CPIA 1996 was served in breach of two court directions with two reminders from the defence. The prosecution served CCTV on the date of trial. The prosecution conceded it was unacceptable to expect the defence to assimilate the evidence and prepare a defence on the day. Prosecution apply to adjourn which was successfully opposed under Picton criteria. Prosecution offer no evidence. Case dismissed.

R v TF – Reading Crown Court 

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol s.5 RTA 1988. Issues in the case were machine reliability. At an earlier hearing on 11/04/18 HHJ Dugdale indicated the prosecution had failed to apply the disclosure test to machine logs and calibration certificates and records of any faults (engineers reports) for 2 months either side of the evidential breath test and suggested these should be disclosed in the interests of transparency. At the full appeal the prosecution failed to serve legible copies of the information requested. No evidence offered after the prosecution unsuccessfully applied to adjourn the case.

R v RJ – Cheltenham MC 

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol s.5 RTA 1988. Issues in the case were consent to blood sample, continuity and evidence of driving. The doctor failed to produce the HORT/5 consent form, the continuity statement was completed on the date of trial which stated that the sample was sent for testing in Warrington whereas the STR/1 form suggested it was sent to Coventry. The prosecution had failed to supply disclosure under CPR 19.3(3)(d) namely analytical pack on which the blood analysis was based. The defence applied to exclude all evidence under CPR 19.3(4). The prosecution then applied to adjourn which was refused applying the criteria under CPS v Picton. Prosecution offered no evidence. Case dismissed.

If you would like the Gold service, please let us know before the first hearing so we can make sure we have the Barrister’s diary at the first hearing when the Court fixes the trial date. Please see our T&Cs for further details.

You can pay the £165 deposit for the first hearing by bank transfer using the details below and email the office on mail@national-motoring-lawyers.com to confirm when done.

HSBC
Account name – National Lawyer Services
Sort – 401504
Account – 21782371
Payment reference – Please use your name as reference

Alternatively we take debit and credit cards over the phone 08000443730 or online via this link https://www.drink-driving-solicitors.com/product/preparation-fee/