KNOW YOUR RIGHTS
In the June 2017 edition of PHTM we informed readers of a major development in drink and drug driving cases in the UK, where it was suspected that a number of blood samples taken from defendants may be unreliable and were going to be re-tested. We at Patterson Law have been closely moni- toring and scrutinising every step. Recently it has been announced that the investigation is expanding and that a number of cases have already been reopened and discontin- ued as a result of the investigation. If you think you could have been affected, call us urgently for advice. If you need any other advice on motoring matters, please email:
e.patterson@
pattersonlaw.co.uk or, for regular updates on traffic law, follow us at:
facebook.com/PattersonLawMotoring Solicitors or
twitter.com/Patterson_law_
RANDOX – AN EXPLANATION
In January 2017 police opened an investigation into Randox, a company which used to test blood samples for the police in rela- tion to drink and drug drive cases. It was suspected that they had been manipulating data in relation to approximately 450 cases. The investigation has steamrolled since then.
Randox have two laboratories, a small one in Manchester and their larger one in Northern Ireland, and originally it was only the lab in Manchester that was placed under investigation. Then last year the investigation expanded so both labs were being investigated - their accreditation as toxicologists for the police was suspended and there was suddenly a question mark over 6,000 blood samples.
Now that figure has risen to over 10,500. Ninety people have so far had their convictions overturned, some of whom were professional drivers and have had their lives destroyed because of a wrongful conviction. We understand that many are now suing for damages and those proceedings are ongoing. We are unaware of any of the cases being completed and the govern- ment has not yet made the details of those cases public, but that will be ongoing for some time yet.
41 of the UK’s 42 police forces have been affected by the inves- tigation. Less than half of the samples have been tested and so this will continue well into 2019.
The National Police Chiefs’ Council has called the scandal the worst evidence breach “in living memory” and has expressed concern at the significant delay this is causing to the criminal justice system.
The two employees accused of manipulating the data are now being suspected of perverting the course of justice – an offence which would almost certainly result in a prison sentence if they were found guilty – and the police are now considering whether to extend the investigation to the laboratory where the employ- ees previously worked previously.
But how did we get here? 64
THE TESTING PROCEDURE
At Patterson Law we have been speaking with two leading experts in the field of toxicology to find out exactly how it has got to this stage.
Once a person is arrested by police under suspicion of drink or drug driving, the police will often take them to a police station and require them to provide a specimen of blood. This sample is then sent to a Home Office approved laboratory for analysis to accurately determine the amount of drugs or alcohol (or both) in the person’s blood.
Randox was one of those laboratories.
Our experts have explained that these specimens are not just tested once, they are tested six times each. Every time it is test- ed a result is obtained and an average taken, and that average is used at court to show whether a driver is above the legal limit or not.
Each time they test - six times per specimen - the lab also test the machine’s calibration. They do standard tests with expect- ed results, and if those results are within their set tolerance they find the machine to be working properly and correctly cal- ibrated.
Each laboratory tests a huge number of specimens every day and so there are hundreds of calibration checks done.
If more than three of the checks are out, then the government guidance suggests that the entire day’s tests need to be done once again.
SO DID RANDOX DO?
Randox and the police have not been exactly clear on what ev- idence has been manipulated, but our experts believe that it re- lates to these calibration checks. At Randox they were having more than three out per day. They were only slightly out, but according to government guidelines it should have meant that the whole day’s tests could not be proved to be accurate, and therefore should have been re-tested.
But instead two employees were manipulating the calibration results to make it seem that the calibration checks were within the parameters when actually they were not.
JANUARY 2019
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80
