Call us on – 0800 0443 730

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...