The Gold Service

 

The lawyers on the firms' Gold service have demonstrated excellence dealing with trials.

One of these lawyers, Philip Lucas achieved a 100% success rate with the firm over 3 years between 2015 and 2017.

More recently he has achieved the following exceptional success rates with the firm for drink & drug driving related cases.

2022 – 100% success rate

2023 – 73% success rate

2024 – 88% success rate

2025 – 100% success rate as at 28.10.25 (9 successful cases out of 9) 

A selection of Phillip's cases with the firm are set out below. You will note many involve legal arguments which may be available no matter how strong your case may seem at the beginning.

Client initials have been used to preserve confidentiality.  The success rates can be verified on request.

If you would like Phillip Lucas to deal with your case please let us know when instructing the firm so we can ask for his available dates when the court fixes the trial.
 

Case Selection - Philip Lucas

R v AP – Stratford MC

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. The defence expert gave evidence that the police station breath test device was unreliable. The Court dismissed the charge.

R v SR – Feltham MC

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. As a result of the non-disclosure of the CCTV the Court agreed to dismiss the charge.

R v MW – Redhill MC

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. The prosecution failed to comply with their duties by not sending a disclosure letter. The prosecutor conceded they could not proceed to trial.

R v MP – St Albans MC

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. The officer in the case failed to attend trial.. Case dismissed.

R v SA – Barkingside MC

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. The officer in cross examination accepted that the CCTV from the breath test room should have been entered on the schedule of unused material. Case dismissed.

R v VW – Aldershot MC

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. The unused material was defective with missing items as CCTV was requested but not served. Case dismissed.

R v RS – Worcester MC

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. The schedule of unused material was incomplete. The Court agreed that the prosecution had not complied with disclosure duties. Case dismissed.

R v SM – Taunton MC

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. 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. Case dismissed.

R v TT – Westminster MC

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. An incomplete schedule of unused material was served. Case dismissed.

R v RH – Blackburn MC

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. The prosecution unsuccessfully applied to adjourn the case for the officer to attend. Case dismissed.

R v WS – Chelmsford MC

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. 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. Charges dismissed.

R v AK – Poole MC

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. There was no response to the defence case statement. 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. The operator sought to rely upon copy breath test booklet MG DD/A and copy printout not the original which was successfully opposed. 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. The initial disclosure was served in breach of two court directions with two reminders from the defence. Case dismissed.

R v TF – Reading Crown Court

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. The prosecution had failed to review machine logs and calibration certificates. 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. The doctor failed to produce the HORT/5 consent form. The prosecution then applied to adjourn which was refused. 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. Charges dismissed.

R v MP – Cambridge MC

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. Evidence was served the day before trial so the police were unable to present evidence of the breath specimens. Charges dismissed

R v DT – Peterborough MC

The Defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol. The prosecution failed to provide a streamlined forensic report SFR/2 and HORT/5 (record of blood sample). Charges dismissed.

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. Charges dismissed.