Our client was arrested for driving a motor vehicle on a road whilst alcohol level was above the prescribed limit after providing a positive roadside breath sample.
At the police station a reading of 48 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millitres of breath was provided and our client had the option to have their breath sample replaced by a urine specimen.
A sample was given and sent for analysis, the reading returned from the laboratory showing a result of 108 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millitres of urine. As a result, our client was charged with drink-driving.
There was a number of concerns within this case that were put to the court at Beverley:
- We received no disclosure from the Crown Prosecution Service.
- Errors made in obtaining a urine specimen.
Our specialist barrister made an initial application to exclude the evidence received at the court. Magistrates’ agreed to exclude the MGDDA/B and a statement from the police officer. The trial continued without these statements.
The barrister closed his case by relying first on no evidence of correct procedures of samples or statutory warnings given. Doubt between the differences between the urine and breath readings and finally the correctness of the official analysis where the reading was just over.
A not guilty verdict was found and a delighted client was free to drive home from court with their licence intact.
Magistrates’ ordered that costs were to be paid from central funds.