The Gold Service

The lawyers on the firms’ Gold service have demonstrated excellence dealing with trials. One of these lawyers, Philip Lucas had a 100% success rate for cases with the firm between 2015 and 2017 and 87% success rate overall as at 20/01/20*. A sample of 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. After hearing evidence from both defence experts with no rebuttal from any prosecution experts the Court 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. As a result of the non-disclosure of the CCTV on the date of trial the Court agreed to exclude all evidence. 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. 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 a 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. The Prosecutor conceded initial disclosure under s.3 was incomplete. The Court agreed that the prosecution had not complied with disclosure duties on basis of failure to comply with s.8 order. 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. 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 issue in the case was the failure of the police to arrange an interpreter. The prosecution failed 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. 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. No evidence offered. Case dismissed.

 

R v WS – Chelmsford 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. The prosecution nonetheless indicated they were ready to proceed to trial. All evidence excluded. 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 had 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. 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. 

 

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. 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 the Judge 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 namely analytical pack on which the blood analysis was based. The defence applied to exclude all evidence. The prosecution then applied to adjourn which was refused. Prosecution offered no evidence. Case dismissed.

R v DF – Cambridge MC

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. The defence were unable to serve an expert report as the prosecution had failed to serve the custody record, which contained pre-release readings. Philip Lucas 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.

R v MP – Cambridge MC

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. Phillip 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.

 

R v DT – Peterborough MC

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 invited the prosecution to adjourn the case and successfully opposed the application resulting in the prosecution offering no evidence.

R v AK – Medway MC

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 successfully defended the case at trial after presenting legal argument. The case was dismissed with costs awarded to the client.

*excludes cases in which firm was not instructed on related successful appeal. 

 

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

Breath Samples

Find out more

Blood Specimens

Find out more

Urine Specimens

Find out more

Driving under the Influence

Find out more

Drunk in Charge

Find out more

Fail to Provide Cases

Find out more