|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
| ||||||
| ||||||
|
||||||
| ||||||
| ||||||
A positive roadside swab or laboratory result recorded as "over the limit" may make a conviction seem inevitable. That is not necessarily the case. A drug driving prosecution relies on a sequence of forensic and procedural stages, including the roadside test, blood collection, laboratory testing and disclosure of evidence to the defence. If a failure occurs at any stage, the prosecution may collapse before a verdict is reached.
Drug Driving Solicitors has acted for clients in dozens of drug driving matters resulting in discontinuance, dismissal or acquittal. The following are six genuine cases from the firm's case records, together with the particular issue that led to each case failing.
In Mr Lewis's case, the arresting officer stated that the roadside drug test showed a "blue line" for cocaine. However, that is not the way a positive result appears on the device, as a true positive is displayed by two red lines. Elsewhere, the officer's statement was also inconsistent about the drug for which the test was said to be positive. These contradictions emerged during cross-examination at trial. The prosecution then accepted that it could no longer establish that the roadside test had been positive, removing the legal foundation for requiring a blood sample in the first place. No further evidence was presented.
Why it matters: roadside test outcomes, and the accounts given by officers who record them, may be challenged in the same way as any other evidence. Differences in an officer's description of a test, even where they appear minor, can cause the prosecution's case to unravel.
Mr Singh's case was unusual because his blood sample was found to be below the legal limit. Despite this, he was charged with the separate offence of driving while unfit through drugs, partly on the basis of statements he made during a police interview months later. Professor Atholl Johnston was instructed as an expert and concluded that the concentration identified in Mr Singh's blood did not fit with what he had said he had taken. The expert also considered it unlikely that the level would have had much effect on him. Alongside a separate error in the hospital paperwork, this led the prosecution to discontinue the case.
Why it matters: a charge does not itself establish that the evidence supports it. A below-limit reading, or expert examination of what a particular level would realistically mean for a person's driving ability, can undermine a case that initially appears stronger than it is.
A number of the firm's cases depended on the same issue: the laboratory responsible for analysing the blood sample had lost its UKAS accreditation to conduct the particular tests required by section 5A of the Road Traffic Act 1988. For Mr T, this was discovered only after the prosecution served its own analytical data pack and it was reviewed. Once the loss of accreditation had been identified, the reliability of the entire analysis became questionable. The prosecution sought an adjournment on the trial date, but the court refused the request and no evidence was offered.
Why it matters: an "above the limit" result can only be relied upon if the laboratory producing it was properly accredited for the test. Where that accreditation was absent, the figure in the laboratory report may not withstand scrutiny in court.
Mr H arranged for part of his own blood specimen to be examined by an independent forensic toxicologist. The expert reached a clear conclusion: the sample did not contain enough blood for a valid analysis to be carried out. This finding was provided to the Crown Prosecution Service with a formal defence statement. Approximately a week before trial, the case was discontinued.
Why it matters: strict requirements apply to the quantity, handling and division of blood samples. Testing a defendant's own portion independently can identify issues that the prosecution laboratory did not raise.
Mr Franklin faced a charge of failing to provide a specimen after informing police that he had a needle phobia. Where a person raises a possible medical reason for being unable to provide a sample, the law requires a medical professional to assess whether it constitutes a reasonable excuse. In this case, no medical professional was asked to conduct that assessment. An expert report, based on Mr Franklin's medical records and a consultation with him, confirmed that the phobia was genuine. In light of both this evidence and its own procedural failing, the prosecution discontinued the matter before trial.
Why it matters: a charge of "failure to provide" does not automatically amount to an offence. Where there is a genuine medical reason, police must ensure it is properly assessed. Failing to do so can weaken the entire prosecution.
After Mr Sharpe entered a not guilty plea, the court imposed a clear timetable requiring the prosecution to disclose its forensic report and supporting material. The initial deadline passed without compliance. A later hearing resulted in further directions, which the prosecution also failed to follow. By the preliminary hearing, held only weeks before trial, the necessary material had still not been disclosed. Rather than continue without properly ordered evidence, the prosecution discontinued the case.
Why it matters: the Criminal Procedure Rules impose genuine obligations on the prosecution to disclose evidence within the required timeframe. Repeated non-compliance is not merely a technical issue. Courts have repeatedly prevented the prosecution from relying on evidence disclosed too late, and that can be fatal to a case.
These six cases were not discontinued because police simply "changed their mind." Each involved a distinct and provable issue: evidence from an officer that could not withstand scrutiny, a result that did not support the charge, an unaccredited laboratory, an inadequate sample, an unexamined medical reason or missed disclosure deadlines. In each instance, the issue was identified by a defence team that understood where to investigate.
For anyone facing a drug driving charge, the circumstances of the stop, the sample taken and the evidence supporting the allegation may be considerably more important than one figure in a laboratory report. Speaking with a specialist solicitor at an early stage offers the strongest opportunity to establish whether any of these issues may also apply to the case.
This article provides general information only and is not legal advice. Every case depends on its individual facts.
get acrobat
contact us
copyright and policies