Call us on – 0800 0443 730

Sample Cases (updated 27/09/21)

by | Last updated Sep 27, 2021 | 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.

 

Southend MC – R v LB

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. The client had consumed alcohol after the time of alleged driving (hip flask defence) and there were issues with the breath test procedure which had to be repeated. The case was discontinued before the first hearing after Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) wrote to the prosecution with disclosure requests. 

Chelmsford MC – R v LZ

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. The issues in the case included the failure of the police to arrange a Lithuanian translator and breath samples were taken despite a 15% breath difference in breach of guidance in the MD GG/ A specimen booklet which requires the officer to move to a blood or urine sample. CCTV footage from the specimen procedure was deleted after being requested in writing. The case was discontinued before the trial after James Brookes instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) raised the issues with the breath test printout. 

Southampton MC – R v JM

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. The issues in the case were the reliability of the blood specimen and continuity. During the case the prosecution expert ceased to be qualified through failing to maintain competency. The prosecution then applied to produce the report in writing instead. James Brookes (gold level lawyer) instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) successfully persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the charges at trial as the expert was not the same person who carried out the analysis and statements from the person who tested the blood sample had not been served as evidence. 

Brighton MC – R v NR

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. The issues in the case were mental fitness to understand the statutory warning and a mouth alcohol error message had been displayed by the breath test machine which required the officer to move to blood or urine. Eugene MacLaughlin (reviewing lawyer) raised case management failings by the prosecution including non-service of CCTV from the breath test procedure and unused material. The charges were discontinued in writing before trial. 

Staines MC – R v JL

The client was prosecuted for being drunk in charge. The issues in the case included the statutory defence (no likelihood of driving) and private land. There was signage at the car park which confirmed its use was limited to visitors of a community centre and it was closed at the time of arrest. The owners of the car park also confirmed the car park was private land. Following written representations from Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) with case law in support of legal argument on the private land issue the case was discontinued before the second hearing when it was disclosed that the police had deleted video footage which had been requested. 

Doncaster MC – R v LO

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol in blood. The issues in the case were continuity of the blood specimen, fitness to consent and post driving alcohol (hip flask defence). At the second hearing Chris Filer instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the charges after it was noted that the police officer had failed to obtain consent from the doctor in charge of care for the blood sample to be taken which is a legal requirement under the Road Traffic Act 1988. 

Colchester MC – R v OD

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. The two breath specimens had been provided 16 minutes part which raised questions about procedural correctness and whether the statutory warning should have been repeated before the second sample. There were also case management failings as the police had not complied with their disclosure duties by serving video footage from the specimen procedure. Richard Berman (gold level lawyer) instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence at the second hearing listed for trial after the officer in the case failed to attend. 

Llanelli MC – R v TE

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. The client had consumed alcohol after the time of alleged driving (hip flask defence) and the police had failed to arrange a back track calculation before deciding whether to charge as required by the MG DD/A breath specimen booklet. At the first hearing Richard Berman persuaded a District Judge there were gaps in the evidence as the police could not say what alcohol had been consumed before driving. Neil Blackaby (reviewing lawyer) then raised numerous issues with disclosure in writing including failure to serve specimen booklet, video footage and unused material. The case was discontinued after the first hearing.  

Barkingside MC – R v WO

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. The client had sustained head injuries due to grossly disproportionate force by arresting officers and was not medically fit to be detained and it was also to be argued that the police behaved with bad faith towards the client by falsely claiming that his vehicle had been stopped due to erratic driving which was denied. At the first hearing Jay Lemosa (gold level lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to withdraw charges as the police had failed to supply evidence for the hearing. 

Bexley MC – R v TG

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. The client had a severe asthma attack during the breath test procedure. The issue in the case was whether the police had a legal duty to move to blood or urine on medical grounds under the Road Traffic Act 1988. The case was discontinued following the first hearing after Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) raised non-service of the evidence pack with the prosecution. 

Uxbridge MC – R v SD

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol in blood. The issues in the case included the reliability of the sample as the container had not been shaken for 30 seconds, continuity and the clients medical fitness to consent. Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) raised prosecution disclosure failings including no SFR/2 (level 2 forensic report), no MG DD/C (hospital specimen booklet), no HORT5 (form completed by nurse) and no unused material. The prosecution discontinued the case in writing before the trial after these matters were raised by Richard Berman (instructed by Sandra Cooper) at a case management hearing.

Wimbledon MC – R v MH

The client was prosecuted for driving above the specified limit in cannabis. The issues in the case were continuity and reliability of the blood sample as the container was not shaken for 30 seconds. Neil Blackaby (reviewing lawyer) raised disclosure issues throughout the case including non service of the unused material. After rejecting the SFR2 (level 2 forensic report), the statement from the health care professional and opposing an application for the analyst to give evidence by live link the prosecution discontinued the charges before trial. 

Stratford MC – R v JV

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. The procedure was challenged as the printout mechanism was faulty and the statutory warning was not given adequately. Jay Lemosa instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) successfully applied to have the charges dismissed at trial after the officer accepted he had not done anything to satisfy himself the client understood the warning. 

Highbury MC – R v HD

The client was prosecuted for driving above the specified limit in cannabis. The legal issues were the continuity of the blood sample, tainted evidence due to the degrading treatment of the client by the arresting officers and mental fitness to understand the statutory warning at the time of the blood specimen procedure. The officer who conducted the specimen procedure failed to attend trial. Jay Lemosa instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence after opposing an attempt to call another officer to give evidence. This was the second case successfully defended by the firm for the client. 

 

Leeds MC – R v HK

The client was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol (42 in breath). The legal issues were machine reliability, whether police radios were switched off during the specimen procedure and whether the officer was qualified to use the machine as the operator of the breath test device was being supervised. At the trial, William Staunton, instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) successfully opposed an adjournment request after the prosecution failed to serve witness statements for the breath test operator and the other officer. The prosecution offered no evidence. 

 

Huddersfield MC – R v LH

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide breath sample. The legal issues were whether there was sufficient evidence to prove the identity of the vehicle driver, whether the statutory warning had been given and whether the client was under the influence. On the date of trial, Besty Hindle instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to accept the evidence was limited to showing the client was in charge of the vehicle as witnesses had failed to attend Court. This allowed the Court to impose penalty points instead of a mandatory ban. Although the client totted up (having 3 points already) the Court was persuaded there was exceptional hardship and the client avoided a driving ban. 

 

Leeds MC – R v JW

The client was charged for driving with excess alcohol in breath. The issues included mental fitness to understand the statutory warning. Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) represented the client at trial and persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence after the police claimed they had not received a request for video footage from the specimen procedure when they had in fact responded to the email which discredited the officers in the case. 

 

Oxford MC – R v BK

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol in blood. The issues included fitness to consent and failure to provide container to client with own sample for independent analysis. Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) made written representations to the prosecution in respect of the failure by the police to comply with directions for the service of an SFR2 (level 2 forensic report) and unused material resulting in the case being discontinued.

 

Kirklees MC – R v BH

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. The expert report from Dr Mundy showed that the client had not consumed sufficient alcohol to exceed the prescribed limit raising questions about the reliability of the breath test device and the client could not recall the statutory warning at the time of the police station breath test which is a strict legal requirement. On review of the CCTV from the evidential procedure it was apparent that the police had not given the warning. Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) made written representations to the prosecution resulting in the case being discontinued before the second hearing. 

 

Uxbridge MC – R v JR

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. The issues identified were the reliability of the breath test device as the client had provided a borderline breath alcohol level and insufficient evidence of driving. At the second hearing James Brookes, instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) made a successful half time submission of no case to answer due to the prosecution failing to produce evidence of driving. 

 

Ealing MC – R v MR

The client was prosecuted for failing to provide breath specimen. One of the issues was whether the breath test was ineffective due to machine malfunction or operator error. Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) made written representations to the prosecution about the non-service of the mouthpiece used during the specimen procedure which was required as part of defence case preparation. The charges were discontinued before the second hearing.

 

Highbury Corner MC – R v BG

The client was prosecuted for being in charge whilst under the influence of drugs. James Brookes instructed by Neil Blackaby (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence at trial as they had failed to comply with their disclosure duties with no letter under section 3 CPIA 1996 or schedule of unused material. 

 

Romford MC – R v SB

The client was prosecuted for being drunk in charge. Jay Lemosa instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the Court that the client had no intention of driving as he lived a short walk away from where the vehicle was parked. A forensic report was used to show that the client would have been below the prescribed limit at the time he intended to drive. The charges were dismissed after trial. 

Croydon MC – R v MK

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol above the prescribed limit in blood. The client was not offered a urine sample after disclosing needle phobia. Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) obtained an expert report from Dr Mundy and highlighted issues with disclosure namely failure to serve notes from the examination form to enable the defence expert to comment. The charges were discontinued after the first hearing.

 

Uxbridge MC – R v MA

The client was charged with failing to provide breath specimen. The issue identified was the police failure to arrange a social worker due to client’s vulnerable state. He had previously sustained a brain injury and was displaying unpredictable behaviour.  Following the first hearing the charges were discontinued after Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) served a skeleton argument with supporting caselaw. 

 

Manchester and Salford MC – R v ZU

The client was charged for driving above the specified limit in cannabis. The nurse had taken a blood sample despite pain and discomfort caused from abortive attempts to find a vein. It was submitted there were medical reasons for abandoning the specimen procedure and the continuity of the chain of custody in relation to the blood sample was in dispute. Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the charges after they failed to provide the SFR2 (level 2 forensic report) and data pack for the use of the defence expert. 

 

Colchester MC – R v DB

The client was charged for driving with excess alcohol in blood. The defence expert Dr Mundy identified numerous issues with the reliability of the blood analysis including evidence of contamination, incorrect quality assurance criteria was used, no results of the fluoride analysis were disclosed, and there were continuity issues with the sample reference from the blood specimen booklet which was not mentioned in the documentation supplied by the analyst. Dr Robinson, psychologist also confirmed that the client was not mentally fit to understand the statutory warning. The prosecution agreed both reports. Jay Lemosa, instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the charges. 

Ipswich MC – R v DV

The client was charged for driving with excess alcohol in breath. The police had entered the incorrect breath alcohol level on the charge sheet and despite the issue being raised at Court the prosecution failed to serve the printout within 7 days of trial which is a legal requirement. They also applied late to amend the charge. After written representations from Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) the case was discontinued before trial. 

Croydon MC – R v BD

The client was charged for driving with failing to provide breath specimen and careless driving. The client was not mentally fit to comply with the specimen procedures or understand the statutory warning which is a strict legal requirement. Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) made written representations to the CPS that they were required to serve body cam footage and MG DD/A breath test booklet as this material did not appear on the schedule of unused material which indicated this was to be used as evidence. The prosecution discontinued the matter on the grounds they were unable to comply with their disclosure duties after failing to provide this additional evidence. 

 

Nottingham MC – R v KR

The client was charged for driving with excess alcohol in breath. Special reasons were submitted to the Court in respect of the shortness of distance driven and emergency. The client was assaulted by her partner who was driving. She told him to get out of the car and quickly moved over to the drivers seat and drove 100 metres away to get away from him. There were injuries which were witnessed by the police which supported her account. Danae Larham instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) successfully persuaded the District Judge not to disqualify or impose penalty points.

Westminster MC – R v GY

The client was charged for driving with excess alcohol in blood. The Defendant had a needle phobia which was not taken into account by the officer conducting the specimen procedure. Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) wrote to the prosecution highlighting numerous police disclosure failings including the absence of a scientist attached to the SFR1 and non-service of data pack contrary to the criminal procedure rules. After the first hearing the prosecution discontinued the charges in writing avoiding the need for contested trial. 

 

Romford MC – R v SS

The client was charged for driving with excess alcohol in blood. The issues were significant mistakes in procedure after the police charged the client on a breath sample despite a 15% breath difference. The prosecution amended the charge to a blood sample at which time the continuity of the chain of custody was challenged with request for SFR2 forensic report. The prosecution failed to serve this additional evidence. After written representations from Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) and warning of disclosure application and wasted costs from Eugene MacLaughlin (reviewing lawyer) the prosecution discontinued the charges. 

Nottingham MC – R v TD

The client was charged with failing to provide breath specimen. The issues identified were the police failing to arrange a social worker due to client’s vulnerable state and mental fitness to comply with specimen procedures. After the first hearing the charges were discontinued after Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) requested various video and documentary evidence from the prosecution and set out the defence in writing. The client avoided a driving ban and criminal record and defence costs were awarded. 

 

Uxbridge MC – R v RS

The client was charged for driving with excess alcohol. The client had vomited 15 minutes before the breath test causing risk of contamination. The operator failed to wait 20 minutes before taking a breath specimen and no note was made of the reasons for continuing with the procedure as required by the guidance in the booklet. Richard Berman (gold panel lawyer) instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) successfully persuaded the prosecutor to offer no evidence at trial resulting in no driving ban. 

Wimbledon MC – R v VR

The client was charged for driving with excess alcohol. The client argued that he was not mentally fit at the time of the evidential breath test and a Hindi interpreter was not provided despite having difficulty with long and technical words. Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue charges before trial after the police failed to produce an adequate schedule of unused material within the timeframe set by the Court. 

Lincoln MC – R v KH

The client was charged with failing to provide a breath specimen. The client was arrested at hospital after the police officer refused to speak to her doctor to confirm that the reason she appeared unsteady was due to her medical issues. Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue charges before trial after raising non-service of CCTV and body cam footage. 

 

Great Yarmouth MC – R v SL

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. The issues in the case were machine reliability, mistakes in breath test procedure and insufficient evidence of driving. Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue charges before trial after highlighting numerous disclosure failings including non-service of unused material. 

Stratford MC – R v HD

The client was charged with driving above the specified limit in cannabis. Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) made written representations to the prosecution for the case to be reviewed as the police had failed to serve an SFR2 (level 2 forensic report), full analytical data pack and HORT/5 (statement of nurse taking the blood sample). The prosecution was persuaded to discontinue the charge before trial.

 

Barnsley MC – R v PT

The client was charged with being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle. Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) served a skeleton argument with Land Registry office copies and title plans showing that the land was accessible by residents and visitors not the general pubic and was therefore private land. The prosecution was persuaded to discontinue the charge before trial.

 

Willesden MC – R v BC

The client was charged with failing to provide specimen. The police did not arrange a social worker for the specimen procedure which was required under the codes of practice as the client was vulnerable. Eugene McLaughlin, reviewing lawyer persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the case before trial. 

 

Uxbridge MC – R v MN

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. The issue in the case was the failure of the police to arrange a Bulgarian translator for the specimen procedure despite having arranged one for the booking in procedure. Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue charges before trial after highlighting disclosure issues including non-service of unused material. 

Cardiff MC – R v RT

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue charges before trial as it could not be proved that the road was used by the public notwithstanding it was council owned. Costs were awarded. 

Staines MC – R v BD

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. The machine had failed to produce a breath test printout and the operator of the device failed to retain the CCTV from the breath test room to allow the procedure to be checked. James Brookes (gold panel lawyer) instructed by Eugene MacLaughlin (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the District Judge that the case should be dismissed. 

Walsall MC – R v RB

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol The issues in the case were the reliability of the breath test device. Phillip Lucas (gold level lawyer) instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence as the police had failed to produce service logs after it was noted that the gas cylinder was out of date. Costs were awarded to the client.  

 

Romford MC – R v TM

The client was charged with being drunk in charge whilst above the prescribed limit. The issues in the case were mistakes in procedure and reliability of the breath test device as the police operator had expressed concerns about the machine during the specimen procedure. Also the client was pursuing the statutory defence of no likelihood of the vehicle being driven whilst above the legal limit. Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue charges after highlighting prosecution disclosure failings including non-service of the unused material. 

Stratford MC – R v MD

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. The issues in the case were procedural correctness and mental fitness to understand the statutory warning as the client was in severe physical discomfort having been refused access to the toilet. Charges discontinued after Eugene McLaughlin (reviewing lawyer) applied to Court for disclosure of prosecution material for the defence expert which had not been received from the police. 

 

Reading MC – R v LD

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol on a blood sample. The client had driven out of fear for her safety following a domestic violence incident. Charges were discontinued following written representations by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) after the prosecution had failed to respond to a bad character application. 

 

Wimbledon MC – R v PN

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol on a breath sample. The charges were discontinued after representations by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) in relation to prosecution failure to comply with Court directions for the service of unused material and CCTV.  The issues in the case were the reliability of the breath test device, police radios were not switched off and the statutory warning was not given at the time of the evidential breath test.

Llanelli MC – R v AR

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol on a breath sample. The charges were discontinued after representations by Eugene McLaughlin (reviewing lawyer). The police failed to arrange an appropriate adult for the interview which was required as the client was vulnerable due to his anxiety disorder. There were also mistakes in procedure on the evidential breath test. 

Reading MC – R v AA

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol on a blood sample. The charges were dismissed at trial after representation by Jay Lemosa (gold panel lawyer) with instructions from Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer). The police failed to serve an SFR2 forensic report in good time for the trial.

 

Medway MC – R v BK

The client was prosecuted for being drunk in charge. The charges were discontinued before trial after representation at the first hearing by Jay Lemosa (gold panel lawyer) and written representations by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) in relation to police disclosure failings. This issues in the case were continuity and failure to provide the client with a container after a urine sample had been taken. 

Ipswich MC – R v NL

The client was charged for failing to provide. Daniel Rasteen instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the District Judge not to disqualify on the grounds of exceptional hardship after the client totted up more than 12 penalty points.  

 

Horsham MC – R v LW

The client was charged for driving with excess alcohol after taking over control of the vehicle from his wife to drive a short distance. Jay Lemosa (gold panel lawyer) instructed by Eugene McLaughlin (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the Court not to disqualify on the grounds there were special reasons.

 

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.

 

Luton Crown Court – R v DP

The client was charged with failing to provide breath specimen. Richard Berman (instructed by Laura Heywood) successfully appealed a driving ban. The client had provided one breath sample below the prescribed limit but had been unable to provide a second sample. It was argued that the fact one sample was below meant the client posed no risk to other road users and amounted to special reasons. This legal argument was accepted by the Court.

 

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