Call us on – 0800 0443 730

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...