Sample Cases 2018/19/20

by | Last updated Mar 19, 2020 | Published on Oct 13, 2019 | Blog | 0 comments

We have set out below a selection of cases successfully defended in which all clients avoided a mandatory driving ban and most were awarded legal fees to be reimbursed.

 

North Tyneside MC – R v RJ

One of our reviewing lawyers Laura Heywood persuaded the prosecution to drop the case before trial after prosecution failed to serve initial disclosure of unused material. Client was challenging the legality of the breath test procedure as the police failed to arrange an interpreter.

 

Willesden MC – R v HF

Laura Heywood again persuaded the prosecution to drop the case due to the same failure by the prosecution to serve initial disclosure of unused material. Client had a medical reason for failing to provide a breath specimen due to his injuries after a road traffic accident.

Birmingham MC – R v CE

Jay Lemosa, in-house lawyer on the gold service persuaded the Court not to allow an adjournment to the prosecution after the police witness failed to attend Court due to having to attend his wife’s hospital appointment. Client was challenging the legality of the blood sample which was taken without good medical reasons.

 

Camberwell Green MC – R v MA

Laura Heywood persuaded the prosecution to drop the case before trial after prosecution failed to serve CCTV. Client was challenging the reliability of the machine as insufficient alcohol was consumed to exceed the prescribed limit.

 

Bromley MC – R v SW

Jay Lemosa persuaded the prosecution at the first hearing to offer no evidence after it was noted that the two breath specimens had a higher than permitted 15% breath difference.

 

Bromley MC – R v IK

One of our in-house lawyers on the platinum service Richard Berman (with assistance of Sandra Cooper reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence after prosecution failed to serve unused material and CCTV. Client had been cuffed and strip searched without justification

 

Croydon MC – R v EA

One of our reviewing lawyers Sandra Cooper successfully persuaded prosecution in writing to discontinue after serving legal submissions and supporting caselaw. Medical reason was raised by client for not giving blood, but the issue was not referred to a doctor.

 

Worthing MC – R v JM

John Oliver, a lawyer on the firms’ silver service (with instructions from Sandra Cooper) successfully persuaded the Court to refuse an application by the prosecution to adjourn after the prosecution expert failed to attend Court. The client was challenging the level of cannabis in his blood which was 2.1 with the specified limit being 2.

 

Bristol MC – R v SR

Philip Lucas gold panel lawyer (with instructions from Sandra Cooper) successfully defended a charge after non-disclosure of unused material and CCTV. Client could not recall statutory warning and put prosecution to strict proof of driving.

 

Birmingham MC – R v MH

David Houldcroft in house lawyer on the platinum service (with instructions from Sandra Cooper) invited prosecution to offer no evidence after they were refused an adjournment following non-disclosure of CCTV. Client maintained reasonable excuse to failing to provide on medical grounds.

 

Margate MC – R v OV

Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue in writing after non-service of CCTV and custody record. Client disputed the breath test procedure and could not recall the officer completing the MG DD/A.

 

Wimbledon MC – R v ZB

Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the case before trial after prosecution failed to serve initial disclosure of unused material and failed to comply with directions of the Court. Client was a Hungarian national who was not provided with an interpreter for the breath specimen procedure.


Coventry MC – R v LS

David Houldcroft, with instructions from Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) successfully argued that there were special reasons not to impose a mandatory 12 month driving ban. Instead, the Court disqualified the client for just one month. The client had driven out of fear for his personal safety after being assaulted by males outside a nightclub.

 

Birmingham MC – R v MC

David Houldcroft persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the case at the first hearing after the police failed to make the initial evidence available. The client was challenging the breath test procedure as he could not recall the MG DD/A being completed and was putting the prosecution to strict proof as to evidence of driving.

 

Ipswich MC – R v JB

Jay Lemosa, with instructions from Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) successfully opposed an application to adjourn the trial after the police office was unable to attend Court due to being on a training day. The client was challenging machine reliability and the operator had failed to sign the MG DD/A breath test booklet.

 

Newcastle Upon Tyne MC – R v KH

Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the case before trial. The client had been charged with failing to provide a breath specimen but the printout showed a mouth alcohol error message which demonstrated that there was an issue with the machine. Ian Hudson, in-house lawyer set the groundwork in place by clearly setting out all the issues at the first hearing.

 

Wigan MC – R v OG

Tom Longstaff, bronze level lawyer (with instructions from Sandra Cooper) successfully opposed an attempt by the prosecution to adjourn the case after the police officer failed to attend the trial due to illness. The client was putting the prosecution to strict proof as to evidence of driving.

 

City of London MC – R v EA

In a case involving Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer), charges were discontinued before trial after written representations were made that it was not in the public interest to prosecute. The police used a taser gun without justification and had requested a blood sample when there were medical reasons for not doing so on a failing to provide charge.

 

Reading Crown Court – R v AF

Philip Lucas (with instructions from Laura Heywood) successfully defended a charge after the prosecution failed to serve legible copies of the performance history and maintenance records required by the defence expert to comment on machine reliability. No evidence offered after the prosecution unsuccessfully applied to adjourn the case.

 

Willesden MC – R v CS

James Brookes in house lawyer on the platinum service persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the case after the first hearing. The police had taken a breath sample unlawfully where there were medical reasons for moving to blood or urine. The client suffered from asthma and started to feel dizzy after attempting to blow into the breath test device and had to lie down.

 

Camberwell Green MC – R v JL

Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) made written representations that there been inadequate disclosure of CCTV. The copy provided had sound with no images. As a result of pursuing these disclosure failings the prosecution discontinued the case. The client was challenging the breath test procedure.

 

Derby MC – R v JH

David Houldcroft (with instructions from reviewing lawyer Laura Heywood) invited the prosecution to adjourn the case due to non-service of the CCTV. After successfully opposing the adjournment he persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence. The client was challenging the breath test procedure.

 

Horsham MC – R v CH

George Symes bronze level lawyer (with instructions from reviewing lawyer Sandra Cooper) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the case at trial after late service of the CCTV and failing to provide unused material. The client was challenging the reliability of the breath test device.

 

Cheltenham MC – R v RJ

Philip Lucas (with instructions from reviewing lawyer Sandra Cooper) successfully opposed an application by the prosecution to adjourn the trial after they failed to provide a consent form for a blood sample with a number of outstanding problems with continuity of the blood sample. The client disputed that he was fit to consent to a blood sample at the hospital.

 

North Somerset MC – R v JD

Neil Whittle, bronze level lawyer (with instructions from reviewing lawyer Sandra Cooper) successfully persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence after the main prosecution witness failed to attend the trial. The client denied driving the vehicle.

 

Cannock MC – R v LB

David Houldcroft (with instructions from reviewing lawyer Sandra Cooper) successfully defended the case after persuading the prosecution to offer no evidence once they failed to serve the interview tape. Initially the prosecution were going to substitute a new charge of drunk in charge on the date of trial until David threatened to seek wasted costs and argue abuse of process. The client was putting the prosecution to strict proof as to the identity of the driver.

 

Margate MC – R v PM

Jay Lemosa (with instructions from reviewing lawyer Laura Heywood) successfully opposed an application by the prosecution to adjourn the trial after the prosecution failed to serve a witness statement from the officer in the case and the operator of the breath test machine failed to attend Court. As a result, the prosecution offered no evidence. The client was challenging the breath test procedure and could not recall the officer completing the MG DD/A breath test booklet.

 

Chesterfield MC – R v DJ

David Houldcroft (with instructions from Laura Heywood) invited the prosecution to offer no evidence after they were refused an adjournment following non-disclosure of CCTV. The client was disputing the urine sample procedure.

 

Uxbridge MC – R v BM

Sherbanu Suliman (in house lawyer) with instructions from Sandra Cooper successfully opposed an adjournment request from the prosecution who were in breach of disclosure duties. The police had not responded to a request for CCTV and had failed to serve initial disclosure of unused material. No evidence was offered after the adjournment was refused. The issue in the case was the breath test procedure and machine reliability.

 

Bromley MC – R v AA

Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) made written representations to the CPS that there had been not disclosure of unused material, CCTV, body worn footage and pocket note book. As a result of pursuing these disclosure failings the prosecution discontinued the case. The client was challenging the reliability of the breath test device.

 

Willesden MC – R v MD

Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) requested CCTV and dash cam to assess whether there was sufficient evidence of the vehicle being driven. This material undermined the assertion by the officer that the car had been driven. The prosecution were persuaded to discontinue the case before the trial.

 

Bristol MC – R v FS

Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) with assistance from Giles Pengelly (bronze level lawyer) successfully persuaded the prosecution to discontinue charges before the trial after serving a skeleton argument setting out a number of issues with the breath test procedure including the need to issue a statutory warning on a second occasion after an abortive breath test. The client was awarded costs.

 

Basingstoke MC – R v DT

James Brookes (in house lawyer) with instructions from Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) successfully applied to exclude the CCTV and MG DD/A breath test booklet at trial as the breath test sample had been taken some 9 minutes after the statutory warning had been given. The client was challenging the breath test procedure.

 

St Albans Crown Court – R v YM

Jay Lemosa (in house lawyer) with instructions from Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) successfully appealed against a conviction for being drunk in charge. An expert report confirmed the Defendant would have been below the prescribed limit at the time he intended to drive.

 

Romford MC – R v JM

Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) successfully persuaded the prosecution to discontinue charges before the trial after the police failed to comply with disclosure requests including unused material, CCTV, analytical pack, details of laboratory accreditation, the last 3 rounds of proficiency testing and HORT5 medical consent form. Client was challenging the continuity of evidence in respect of a blood sample.

 

Kings Lynn MC – R v CG

Jay Lemosa (in house lawyer) with instructions from Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) successfully applied to dismiss a drink driving charge on a blood sample after they failed to serve an SFR/1 report and various documentary evidence. The Defendant was testing continuity (the chain of custody of the blood sample).

 

Oxford MC – R v TC

Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the charges before the trial after the prosecution failed to provide material to allow the defence to check continuity on a blood sample including the analytical pack, details of laboratory accreditation, and the last 3 rounds of proficiency testing.

 

Staines MC – R v MD

Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the case before trial due to failure to comply with disclosure requests including unused material and CCTV which was necessary allow a defence expert to comment on whether the client’s medical condition caused him to stumble. The client was challenging the reliability of the evidential breath test device.

 

Basildon MC – R v MM

Jay Lemosa (with instructions from Sandra Cooper) successfully opposed an adjournment request from the prosecution after police officers had failed to attend Court. The client was challenging the reliability of the evidential breath test device.

 

Croydon MC – R v RN

Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the case against the client after it was noted that three samples were taken (by law only two samples can be taken) and there was more than the maximum 15% breath difference between the samples. The client was challenging the reliability of the breath test device.

 

Wimbledon MC – R v ML

Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the charges after they failed to serve any evidence in the case including unused material. The client was pursuing a defence based on post driving alcohol consumption.

 

Brighton MC – R v VP

Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the case before trial after serving an expert report commenting on the reliability of the evidential breath test device. The breath specimens were unreliable due to a mouth alcohol error message that appeared to be incorrect as too much time had elapsed since the last drink for the client to have brought up alcohol from her stomach.

 

Yeovil MC – R v MS

Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the case after persuading them there was no realistic prospect of a conviction. The client was testing the prosecution case on whether they could prove the identity of the driver. Also the police had given the Defendant an assurance there would be no further action before bringing charges.

 

Taunton MC – R v ER

Giles Pengelly (instructed by Sandra Cooper) successfully persuaded the Court to dismiss the case after the officer could not explain the delays in the breath test procedure and accepted that sections of the form had not been completed. The officer had also given inconsistent evidence about having seen the vehicle being driven.

 

Bexley MC – R v MS

Jeanine Harry (instructed by Sandra Cooper) persuaded the Magistrates to find special reasons against a driving ban due to the short distance driven. The client had driven no more than 7 yards and the Magistrates were satisfied the client had no intention of driving any further.

 

Barkingside MC – R v AB

Eugene McLaughlin opposed an adjournment at the first hearing where the prosecution did not have a file available to proceed with the case. The Court agreed to dismiss the charge.

 

Teeside MC – R v LR

Ian Hudson (instructed by Laura Heywood) persuaded the prosecution to adjourn the case for them to consider discontinuing the case after the defence expert found a ‘check simulator gas’ error message on the printout. The police had failed to move to a blood sample as required by the breath specimen booklet.

 

Highbury MC – R v KM

Laura Heywood, reviewing lawyer persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the case after the police failed to serve CCTV and unused material. The client was challenging the breath test procedure.

 

High Wycombe MC – R v SI

James Brookes (instructed by Laura Heywood) successfully defended a fail to provide charge with an expert witness Dr Robinson. The client had a needle phobia. Instead of the police referring the client’s medical issues to a doctor the police charged the client with failing to provide.

 

Telford MC – R v HB

The case was discontinued after the first hearing where Micaila Williams (platinum lawyer) with Sandra Cooper as the reviewing lawyer persuasively set out all the issues in the case. The issues in the case were whether valid consent was taken for a blood sample at the hospital. The client was not in a fit medical state and therefore the police should have asked for permission after the client had been discharged. There was also an issue on whether there was sufficient evidence to prove the identity of the driver.

 

Barnsley MC– R v AP

Laura Heywood (instructed by Sandra Cooper) successfully defended the case by opposing an adjournment where the operator of the breath test device failed to attend the trial. The client had burped before the breath test procedure and the defence to be pursued was that the officer failed to eliminate contamination from mouth alcohol by waiting 20 minutes.

 

Highbury MC – R v DP

Sandra Cooper, reviewing lawyer persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the case after the police failed to serve CCTV and unused material. The client was challenging the breath test procedure and requiring the prosecution to prove the identity of the driver.

 

Bexley MC – R v KN

Sandra Cooper, reviewing lawyer persuaded the prosecution to discontinue before the trial. The client was charged with drink with excess alcohol. The issues in the case were fitness to consent and the chain of custody of the blood sample.

 

Bexley MC – R v SG

Laura Heywood, reviewing lawyer succeeded in persuading the prosecution to discontinue the case before trial. The issue was the reliability of the evidential breath test device.

 

Bristol MC – R v CH

The issue in the case was whether the police took more than the permitted two breath samples. There was also an issue about whether the police could prove the identity of the driver. The case was discontinued after the first hearing following representation by David Leathley, bronze level lawyer.

 

Ipswich MC – R v NJ

The issue in the case was machine reliability. Jay Lemosa, gold panel lawyer successfully persuaded the Magistrates to dismiss the charges after the prosecution failed to serve CCTV, training log and maintenance records after a disclosure order was obtained at an earlier hearing. Laura Heywood was the reviewing lawyer.

 

Cheltenham MC – R v RN

Chris Filer platinum level lawyer (instruct by Sandra Cooper) successfully opposed an application by the prosecution to adjourn the trial after the prosecution witness failed to attend the second listed trial having attended the first trial. The prosecution offered no evidence.

 

Highbury Corner – R v CM

Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) successfully persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the case after the first hearing when client was represented by Richard Berman, platinum level lawyer. The issues in the case were machine reliability and denial as to driving the vehicle.

 

Mansfield MC – R v RS

The case was discontinued after the first hearing after the client was represented at the first hearing by Mark Stocks, bronze level lawyer. The issues in the case were fitness to be detained and post driving alcohol. The reviewing lawyer was Laura Heywood.

 

Medway MC – R v DM

The case was discontinued after the first hearing when the client was represented by Eugene McLaughlin (platinum level lawyer). The issues in the case were whether the interview could be used after the police failed to notify the client of the right to speak to a lawyer on the phone. It was also noted that error messages appeared to be displayed on the evidential breath test device which may have required the police to move to blood or urine. The reviewing lawyer was Laura Heywood.

 

Cambridge MC – R v MP

Philip Lucas, gold panel lawyer (instructed by Laura Heywood reviewing lawyer) 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.

 

Willesden MC – R v NS

The issues in the case were proof of driving. CCTV had not been served and an interview at the roadside was challenged on the grounds there was no caution and no interview should have taken place until the client was taken to the police station. Richard Berman, platinum level lawyer instructed by Sandra Cooper, reviewing lawyer successfully persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the case at trial, skeleton arguments having been served by the reviewing lawyer in advance of trial placing pressure on the CPS to reconsider the case.

 

Truro MC – R v KS

Sandra Cooper, reviewing lawyer persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the case before trial. The issues in the case were proof of driving, fitness to consent to blood sample and failure to provide the Defendant with a sample of blood.

 

Dudley MC – R v MC

The client was charged with failing to provide. Micaila Williams, platinum level lawyer successfully persuaded the Court to deal with the client on the basis there was no evidence of driving after reviewing CCTV evidence at trial. This meant client was eligible for a shorter discretionary ban instead of a mandatory ban. Instead of a starting point 18 to 24 month ban on a driver basis the client received a 6 month ban. The reviewing lawyer was Laura Heywood.

 

Leamington Spa MC – R v KF

The client was charged with failing to provide. Dr Robinson provided an expert report confirming that the client had a reasonable excuse for failing to provide a breath sample due to his mental state. The case was discontinued before trial once the expert report had been sent to the prosecution. Laura Heywood was the reviewing lawyer.

 

Nottingham MC – R v ZI

Laura Heywood, reviewing lawyer persuaded the prosecution to drop the charges before the trial. The client was facing a drink driving allegation. The issue in the case was machine reliability and contamination from acid reflux.

 

Stevenage MC – R v CG

Richard Berman instructed by Laura Heywood successfully objected to the police relying on the SFR/2 forensic report on a blood sample due to being served out of time. The client was charged with drink driving on a blood sample.

 

Stratford MC – R v NL

The client was charged with being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle. Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) successfully persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the case before trial on the grounds the statutory defence applied because there was no intention to drive the vehicle whilst alcohol remained above the prescribed limit.

 

Portsmouth MC – R v RS

The charges were discontinued before trial on a drunk in charge matter after representations by Laura Heywood, reviewing lawyer. The client was staying in a hotel and went to his car to charge his vehicle. It was successfully argued that the client had no intention of driving accordingly the statutory defence applied of no likelihood of the vehicle being driven with alcohol above the prescribed limit.

 

Swansea MC – R v GE

The client was charged with drink driving in which a blood sample was provided at the hospital. The arresting office failed to note on MGDDC or statements the named medical professional in immediate charge of the defendants care and the doctor was not notified that blood was to be taken. The police later spoke to Doctor on duty who checked the records and confirmed he had no recollection of being notified and no note was found on the med records. Sandra Cooper, the reviewing lawyer made written representations to the prosecution on two occasions setting out the effect of breaching s.9 RTA 1988 protection for hospital patients. The issue was also raised in the defence case statement. The charges were discontinued two days before trial with costs awarded.

 

Thanet MC – R v LB

The client had initially been investigated for drink driving which was not pursued after the client gave a no comment interview. The prosecution proceeded with fail to stop and fail to report and driving without due care. The Crown served footage of the defendant parking his car in the road where the incident occurred. The footage later showed the defendant returning to his vehicle and driving off at what would appear to be the relevant time. Sandra Cooper the reviewing lawyer noted that 37 seconds of footage was missing between the defendant’s car leaving the parking space and a unidentified vehicle leaving the road. It was also noted that there was no statement confirming that the time on the CCTV was accurate. A defence case statement was set out the issues with the continuity of the footage. The case was discontinued the day before trial.

 

Folkestone MC – R v BA

The client was charged after providing a blood sample at a hospital despite being unfit to consent. Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) provided detailed written and oral instructions to the lawyer Richard Berman. The charge was dismissed due to disclosure issues when the officer accepted in cross examination that he did record the incident on BWV which contradicted what the prosecutor had stated earlier in Court that there was no BWV during pre trial disclosure issues.

 

Colchester MC – R v RC

The issue in the case included the client’s fitness to be detained at the police station and fitness for interview after being involved in a road traffic accident. The officer could not attend who conducted the procedure, therefore Jay Lemosa (Gold panel lawyer) with instructions from Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) made strenuous representations opposing the Crowns application to adjourn which the judge refused. This left the CPS with no option but to offer no evidence at the trial. Case dismissed.

 

Highbury Corner – T v CP

The client was charged with failing to provide. A medical report was obtained to comment on whether the refusal may have been caused by the client’s mental state. The expert required the CCTV from the breath test room to confirm her opinion. No video evidence was supplied by the prosecution therefore Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) made written representations for discontinuance on disclosure grounds. Subsequently the prosecution sent a notice of discontinuance before trial.

 

Manchester and Salford MC – R v LF

The client was charged with drink with excess alcohol. The matter was listed for trial and the issues in the case were machine reliability and incompatible roadside breath level. The prosecution failed to serve the CCTV, custody record or schedule of unused material. On the date of trial, Umar Shahzad (bronze level lawyer) instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) successful opposed an attempt by the prosecution to adjourn the case to produce the evidence. The charges were dismissed and costs awarded.

 

Romford MC – R v RS

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. The issues in the case were proof of driving, mistakes on the breath test procedure and failure to give statutory warning. The prosecution failed to serve the MG DD/A breath test booklet and the body worn video evidence directed by the Court. Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) sent two reminders to the prosecution putting them on notice of the failure. The charges were discontinued prior to trial.

 

Salisbury MC – R v AJ

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol in blood. Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) noted there was an inconsistency between the amount of blood tested by the prosecution laboratory and the amount taken by the police doctor. After sending written representations to the prosecution the case was discontinued before trial.

 

Warwick Crown Court – R v OO

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. A report had been obtained from the defence expert on the functioning of the evidential breath test device. There were ‘short fuel cell response times’ which raised concerns about the reliability of the machine. Jay Lemosa (Gold panel lawyer) instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution not to proceed with the case on appeal.

 

Taunton Crown Court – R v NB

The client was charged with failing to provide. It was successfully argued on appeal by Nicholas Fridd (bronze level lawyer) instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) that as the client had no intention of driving there were special reasons not to impose a driving ban. The Judge decided not to impose any penalty points and costs were awarded.

 

Oxford MC – R v CR

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. There were numerous procedural errors identified on the evidential breath test procedure. Eugene McLoughlin (platinum level lawyer) instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) cross examined the police officer at trial who could not recall giving the statutory warning. After a half time submission of no case to answer the charges were dismissed with costs awarded.

 

Barkingside MC – R v LW

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. Richard Berman (Gold panel lawyer) instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the case after failing to serve an SFR/2 (streamlined forensic report) to prove the blood sample. Costs were awarded.

 

Uxbridge MC – R v RC

The client was initially charged with driving under the influence of alcohol (section 4 Road Traffic Act 1988) but then on the date of trial the prosecution amended the charge to driving with excess alcohol (section 5) which required evidence of the breath specimen. The prosecution attempted to use a written note of the breath level made by the defence lawyer on the case management form as evidence of the breath specimen as police officers were not present to produce the printout. Richard Berman (Gold panel lawyer) instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) successfully opposed this by relying on case law which prevents the case management form being used against the client.

 

Bexley Heath MC – R v SM

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. Jay Lemosa (gold panel lawyer) instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) successfully applied to exclude the blood specimen at trial as the prosecution had no evidence to refute the defence case that the police had wrongly informed the client that she only had two days to test her own blood sample.

 

Huddersfield MC – R v SM

The Defendant was charged with failing to provide breath specimen. A defence expert witness confirmed there were medical reasons why a breath sample could not be provided. William McGill (bronze level Barrister) instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) successfully persuaded the prosecution to withdraw the charges before the commencement of the trial. 

 

Highbury MC – R v JB 

The Defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol. Legal argument was presented by Jay Lemosa with instructions from Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) that the client was unlawfully required to provide a breath sample due to not being provided with a translator. The charges were dropped before the trial. 

Peterborough MC – R v DT 

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 Lucas (gold panel lawyer) with instructions from Sandra Cooper invited the prosecution to adjourn the case and successfully opposed the application resulting in the prosecution offering no evidence. 

 

Beverley MC – R v ND

The Defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol. This issues in the case were machine reliability and failure to carry out the breath test procedure correctly. The reviewing lawyer was Laura Heywood. The charges were discontinued before trial. 

 

Cambridge MC – R v HB

The Defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol. The issues were machine reliability and failure to comply with home office guidance on switching off police radios. Jay Lemosa (instructed by Laura Heywood reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to apply to adjourn the case due to lack of disclosure. This was successfully opposed resulting in no evidence offered. 

 

Stratford MC – R v OA

The Defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol. The issues were machine reliability and duress of circumstances. The client had driven away from a nightclub in fear for his safety. Richard Berman (gold panel lawyer) instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence at trial after they had agreed a statement supporting the client’s version of events. 

Northampton MC – R v KC

The Defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol. The issue was machine reliability and procedural correctness of the breath test procedure. The operator of the device failed to attend trial. James Brookes instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) successfully opposed an attempt by the prosecution to adjourn the case to enable the prosecution to attend. 

 

Willesden MC – R v SR

The Defendant was charged with driving excess alcohol in urine. The client had been given a sample of urine to be tested but the officer failed to discard a sample first. Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) successfully persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the charge before trial. 

 

Croydon MC – R v JM

The Defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol in breath. The prosecution failed to serve CCTV or printout or breath specimen booklet. Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the case before trial. 

 

Stratford MC – R v TD

The Defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol. The issues in the case were the failure of the police to complete the MG DD/A breath specimen booklet. The reviewing lawyer Laura Heywood successfully persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the charges before trial.  

  

Ealing MC – R v ZK 

The Defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol in breath. The reviewing lawyer was Sandra Cooper. The issues in the case were machine reliability and failure of the police to complete the MG DD/A. The charges were discontinued before trial. 

  

Carlisle MC – R v DK

The prosecution agreed to discontinue the drink driving charge before trial after written representations from Sandra Cooper with a plea bargain to drunk in charge. There was no video evidence supporting a continuous line of sight when the officers claim to have seen the client driving. After representation at Court by Ian Hudson (platinum lawyer), the client received 10 penalty points Instead of an automatic driving ban. 

 

Luton MC – R v CW

The client was charged with drink driving. The issue was machine reliability. At the trial James Brookes (Gold Panel lawyer) with instructions from Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue charges after conceding that they had failed to serve CCTV or MG DD/A. 

  

Wimbledon MC R v MB

The client was charged with drink driving and fail to stop and report. The issue in the case was machine reliability and procedural correctness. The prosecution dropped the charges following the first hearing after Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) made written representations concerning failure to disclosure video evidence. 

Carlisle MC – R v XL

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. The issue in the case was whether a translator should have been provided. The case was discontinued before trial after a skeleton argued was served on the prosecution by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer).

 

 

Romford MC – R v AU

The case was discontinued before trial. The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol and the issue in the case was the failure to call a translator. The case was discontinued before trial after issues were raised by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) concerning disclosure failings by the prosecution in particular non service of unused material. 

Bexley MC – R v MC

The Defendant was charged with fail to provide breath specimen. The reviewing lawyer was Sandra Cooper. The issue in the case was medical reasons due to the client having a panic attack and was seen by the police doctor shortly afterwards. The prosecution failed to provide CCTV from the breath test procedure. After written representations, the charges were discontinued before trial and costs awarded. 

St Albans MC – R v DC

The client was charged with failing to provide a breath specimen. A skeleton argument was served on the prosecution by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) setting out the defence, namely that as the client had been diagnosed with Aspergers an appropriate adult should have been called to attend for the breath test procedure after refusal. The case was discontinued before trial. 

 

Barnsley MC – R v LH

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. The hip flask defence was raised (post driving alcohol consumption). After representations by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) the case was discontinued before trial. 

 

Maidstone MC – R v DE

The client was charged with failing to provide. The defence was raised namely inability to provide due to mental state. Disclosure failings were highlighted by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) and the charges were discontinued before trial. 

 

Staines MC – R v SR

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. The issues in the case were machine reliability and procedural correctness. At trial James Brookes (gold panel lawyer) instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the case as no working copy of the CCTV from the breath test procedure was made available at trial. Case dismissed and costs awarded.

Basingstoke MC – R v SP

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol in blood. Fitness to consent and failure to provide own sample for analysis were in dispute. After receiving a comprehensive report from the defence expert and following written representations to the prosecution by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) the charges were discontinued before trial. 

Reading MC – R v NL

The client was charged with failing to provide a breath specimen. The prosecution failed to comply with disclosure duties by not serving unused material. After written submissions from Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) the charges were discontinued before trial.

Stratford MC – R v RD

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. The issues were fitness for detention, continuity of blood sample and evidence of driving. Eugene McLaughlin (platinum lawyer) instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) successfully opposed the prosecution application to adjourn the trial after failing to serve an SFR/2 report concerning the blood sample and failed to arrange the attendance of the analyst. The prosecution offered no evidence with costs awarded. 

Stratford MC – R v EK

Richard Berman (gold panel lawyer) instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) successfully argued that special reasons applied for not imposing a disqualification on a failing to provide charge as the client had asked for a glass of water before undertaking the breath test which was refused by the police. Instead of the mandatory driving ban the Judge was persuaded to impose penalty points meaning the client could continue driving. 

Cannock MC – R V MI 

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. A skeleton argument was sent to the prosecution by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) setting out legal arguments including entrapment by the police officers who asked the client to move his vehicle, unlawful strip search, and mistakes in the breath test procedure. The charges were discontinued before trial.

 

Medway MC – R v AK

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 (gold panel lawyer) instructed by Sandra Cooper successfully defended the case at trial after presenting legal argument. The case was dismissed with costs awarded to the client.

 

Colchester MC – R v GU

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. Jay Lemosa instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) successfully opposed an attempt to adjourn a trial date after the witness who allegedly saw the client driving failed to attend Court. The case was dismissed with costs awarded to the client. 

Cambridge MC – R v DF

The defence were unable to serve an expert report as the prosecution had failed to serve the custody record, which contained pre-release readings. The expert confirmed that client may have been either above or below the prescribed limit dependant on his rate of elimination, which could have been ascertained with the information in the custody record. Philip Lucas (instructed by Laura Heywood) 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.

Staines MC – R v SC

James Brookes (instructed by Laura Heywood) at trial successfully persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the case at trial after the police had failed to serve CCTV and custody record. The client had complained about inappropriate physical contact by police, and it was also argued that she was not fit for detention due to acute earache. There were also issues concerning the reliability of the breath test device and mistake on the breath test procedure.

Harrogate MC – R v GS

The client was charged with driving with failing to provide a blood specimen. Chris Filer, platinum level lawyer (instructed by Laura Heywood) successful applied to dismiss the case after trial as expert evidence confirmed that the officer should not have moved to a blood sample as the problem with the breath test device was caused by operator error. The officer had also failed to refer a medical issue (needle phobia) to a doctor. 

Peterborough MC – R v KD 

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. Chris Filer (instructed by Sandra Cooper) successfully opposed an attempt by the prosecution to adjourn the trial after the police witness failed to attend Court. The prosecution offered no evidence. 

 

Uxbridge MC – R v AT 

The client was prosecuted for being drunk in charge. Richard Berman (instructed by Sandra Cooper) successfully argued there was no intention of driving the vehicle. Charges were dismissed and the client was awarded defence costs. 

Poole MC – R v JC 

The client was charged with failing to provide a breath sample. Jay Lemosa (instructed by Sandra Cooper) successfully persuaded the Court that the client had medical grounds for failing to provide after hearing evidence from a defence expert instructed by the firm that her coughing was caused by a chest condition. 

Highbury Corner MC – R v CB 

The client was charged with failing to provide breath specimen but had no recollection of being asked to provide the specimen. The case was discontinued on the date of trial after Richard Berman (instructed by Sandra Cooper) identified numerous disclosure failings including CCTV,  custody record and details of the nurse who assessed the client. 

Wimbledon MC – R v FB 

The client was charged for driving with excess alcohol. The reviewing lawyer was Sandra Cooper. The case was discontinued before trial after issues were raised about the strength of the evidence and insufficient evidence of driving. 

Stratford MC – R v KS 

The client was charged for driving with excess alcohol. There were issues around the client’s mental fitness to understand the breath test procedures and the statutory warning. Before the date of trial Eugene McLaughlin (reviewing lawyer) made written representations for the case to be discontinued as the prosecution had failed to service unused material or CCTV in advance of trial. The CPS dropped the case on 12/03/20 resulting in the client not having to attend Court. 

Kirklees MC – R v JP 

The client was charged for driving with excess alcohol. There were issues concerning the reasons for stopping the vehicle and machine reliability. Laura Heywood (instructed by Sandra Cooper) successfully opposed an adjournment request by the prosecution after police witness statements were not served properly in advance of trial. Charges dismissed.

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.

Free Telephone Helpline – we are open for calls any day until 9pm on 0800 044 3730

 

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