The Defence Brief

As police investigate forensic experts it is ever more important to challenge scientific evidence   You may, or may not, know that I specialise in motoring law and that my practice has a particular emphasis on drink driving, drug driving and the associated offences . Because these offences usually require some scientific enquiry to be conducted to prove guilt, they frequently include forensic evidence and today I want to look at how courts deal with forensic evidence and challenges to it. Let’s assume that somebody has been arrested for drink driving and, for whatever reason, the police have taken blood to assess how much alcohol is in his body. The prosecution will usually provide a document called an SFR1, which is a summary of the scientific examiner’s findings. It is not a document that is admissible itself, although it can be admitted if all parties agree. If a party does not agree to the summary being admitted then the prosecution ask the expert to produce an SFR2...

Andrew Wakefield - not the expert in this case but another very dodgy expert who was out for himself I have begun a three-part series on my heavily under-used blog The London Drink Driving Solicitor looking at how to find the best solicitor for your case.  It was inspired by some work I did recently for a potential client. This person is represented by another motoring solicitor who has charged her £915 to prepare and conduct a trial – this figure includes an expert report and Counsel’s fees for the first appearance and trial.  Most barristers want £150 - £250 + VAT for a first appearance and between £350 - £500 + VAT to conduct a magistrates’ court trial like this one and I’m told that the expert report cost £450.  So, I’m not really sure how the firm is making any money from these cases, which is why I wasn’t surprised to see that not very much attention appears to have been paid to the preparation of the case.  This is an example of the “pil...

There are whisperings of a crackdown on expert witnesses in the form of a toughening of the rules governing the evidence they give to the court. Currently expert evidence is governed by Rule 33 of the Criminal Procedure Rules as well as by the guidance issued by individual governing bodies, for example this is the General Medical Council's advice .  Other less well regulated areas have different, less or no real guidance for 'experts' to follow.  Even where guidance exists that doesn't mean it will be followed well, properly or even at all! A few years ago, I was counsel in a big cultivation of cannabis case where one of the central issues revolved around an accounting ledger written partly in English and partly in Vietnamese.  There was a dispute over whether a particular word translated into "grass" or "aunty".  The Crown contended the word was "grass" and referred to cannabis sales.  The Defence line was the word meant "aunty...