Blew 66 at station (only one test), No preliminary test.

[Kaylee1000]

YGood afternoon, on the 1st July 2014 I was charged with blowing 66 at the police station. I have done extensive research and need some help whether to plea Not Guilty or Guilty. My main concerns are that I have read you should undergo a preliminary breathalyser test and 2 tests as evidence. I had only blown once at the station. Also upon on bail the officer stated my reading were 660 in 100ml if breathe. And this has been crossed out with pen and changed to 66. The machine was not calibrated before use nor was there a report stating it was of usable use. Could this also be used in my defence? Also at bail I were only given the bail form. No MGDDA form, or breathalyser results. Could I please be advised on how I can obtain the MGDDA form and results.

 

[SeanJoyceStephensons]

The MGDD/A form will only be available to you at the first hearing, as will statements from the police officers. When you are told your results you are only given one reading as the police charge you with the lowest of the 2 readings. If however you are sure that you only provided one specimen of breath at the police station then I would advise that you plead not guilty, the police are required to take 2 specimens of breath at the police station. It is best to write to the police now to request that the CCTV footage from your intoxilyzer procedure is preserved, that way you can request it at the first hearing if pleading not guilty. However, the roadside test is simply a preliminary test and is not evidential, there is no significant procedural error in this not being taken.

I think there may be come confusion as to the calibration of the intoxilyzer. The machine itself upon being turned on does a number of tests to ensure that it is operating correctly. The typical breathlayser printout will look as follows:

Blank 1 000 - This indicates the first check to ensure that there is no alcohol in the machine
Simulator Check 1 035 - This gives itself a reading of 35 of a couple of points either side to check it is reading accurately
Blank 2 000 - Another check to ensure no alcohol is in the machine
Breath Specimen 1 066 - The first specimen provided
Blank 3 000 - Another check to ensure no alcohol is in the machine
Breath Specimen 2 066 - The second specimen provided
Blank 4 000 - Another check to ensure no alcohol is in the machine
Simulator Check 2 035 - The final check to ensure that the machine is reading accurately

As you can see from the above, the machine does a number of checks and self-calibrates before each use. If you are looking to challenge the allegation on a technical basis it is normally a good idea to have a specialist representing you. If this is something that you are interested in you are welcome to contact my department on 0333 999 7158.

 

[Kaylee1000]

Been to court today (15/07/2014) adjourned until (10/09/2014)

Good afternoon


Just an update after my first court hearing. It was adjourned for 3weeks but the CPS refused, and they originally wanted to send me to Croydon instead of back to Camberwell. Once viewing the MGDDA form and the breathalyzer results. It says first reading 72 second 66. I am still adiment that I only blew one times and requested the CCTV footage which the prosecution did not have to hand.


On the MGDDA form (which is a scanned photocopy) my results are indeed signed with a signature different to the one I signed on my bail form. On the MGDDA booklet there are 3 different looking signatures which are recorded as signed by myself. But as I was not given a print out or had even seen one I don't see how it is possible for me to have signed this.


Also on my breathalyzer results it states I blew at 5:03 and 5:05am but on the MGDDA form it states in the breathalyzer procedures section that I was asked if I had eaten anything or consumed any drink or alcohol at 5:42am. Which means I was breathalyzed 37 minutes before being asked any questions.


The last is the police statements: the first is timed at 5:42 and the last 7:05am by different witnessing officers and there is no recolection of the officer in case PC hanson-khan in any of the police literature. Also I were arrested at 4:15am. And was not preliminary tested but had used the intoxilyzer at 5:03am. As this is a significant time lapse my alcohol reading will of course read higher later on.

I plead Not Guilty, what would now be my best course of action.


Thanks in advance.

 

[SeanJoyceStephensons]

I'm afraid that I cannot advise you how to run your case at trial. When we act for people in these cases we have access to all of the documentation and undertake a detailed and thorough review of it all. It is only after reviewing all of this that we advise regarding defences and how best to prepare them.

If I were to advise you now, I would be doing so without the full facts of the case and could give you the incorrect advice as a result, which would do you more harm than good. When you are getting into the technical realms of a drink driving defence it is almost always beneficial to have a solicitor instructed who knows this area of law and what arguments can be put forward. The points you raise regarding the discrepancies with the police evidence certainly seem as though they are worth investigating.

My department specialise in this area and would be happy to assist. If you would like to discuss this option you are welcome to call us on 0333 999 7158.

 

[Kaylee1000]

Hi there, I was referring in reference to me obtaining all CCTV needed to prove my defence.
I have called CPS to be rudely told that I cannot put forward a means of request only my solicitor can; although on the CPS website it states one can do so. After a 10 minute debate of facts she accepted I could and I have sent a letter and e-mail requesting both.


I am due to make a formal complaint on the basis that the prosecution relied solely on the MGDDA form which consists of multiple errors and although these were pointed out in my defence, it feels that as I did not have a solicitor they are playing games with me.

However I ask you one more question. As I were arrested at the hours of 04:32am, I was not given a preliminary test meaning that there is no way to prove my alcohol state at the offending time according to police whether I was indeed under or over apart from a back calculation? As 33 minutes is a significant amount of time for levels to change. Especially if According to my results I had blown 72 at 05:05 but a 66 at 05:08. This is a difference of 8 in 3 minutes.

I shall aim to call you today or tomorrow to discuss this matter

Thank you

 

[SeanJoyceStephensons]

It is the prosecutions job to prove that you have committed the offence, if they are not able to do so then you should be found not guilty. I believe that you would struggle to state that the CPS do not have grounds to prosecute you for this offence in light of the breath readings provided. If they are doing a poor job of prosecuting the case this is only to your benefit.

Regarding the roadside test; any preliminary test carried out is only an initial indication of impairment and is not an evidential breath test. The breath specimens provided at the police station are considered an accurate reflection of your alcohol levels at the time of driving. I would not advise arguing this point as your alcohol levels will have dropped in the time between your arrest and the breathalyser procedure and there is no legal reason the process would be invalidated by the absence of the preliminary test.

You are entirely correct in saying that you are able to request the CCTV footage from the police. I would advise that you clarify with them you are looking for the CCTV footage showing the breathalyser procedure.