‘Smoke and replicate’ techniques of drink-pressure defence teams criticised

'Smoke and replicate' techniques of drink-pressure defence teams criticised

 A police officer gives a motorist a breath test. Photograph: John Giles/PA

Forensic technology regulator launches research into some of expert witnesses

The “smoke and mirror” processes of defence lawyers in drink-using cases were criticised via the authorities’s forensic science regulator, who has released an research into the work of some of professional witnesses.
The evaluate become caused via a recent high court docket judgment that raised issues about defence teams soliciting for the disclosure of massive quantities of “inappropriate” technical facts with a purpose to task the reliability of breathalyser and blood alcohol take a look at consequences.
“It’s a shotgun approach to seeking to get irrelevant matters disclosed to do a smoke and mirrors defence instead of an real issue being raised with the evidence,” stated Gill Tully, the regulator. “It’s been an approach by using some of expert companies of solicitors who tend to use a number of particular specialists.”
In a written submission to the house of Commons justice committee last week, Tully said some teams had been robotically adopting this technique. “The behavior of a small quantity of forensic technology practitioners has been mentioned my workplace in this regard and could be the issue of review,” she stated.
the ones facing scrutiny encompass John Mundy, who acted as an professional witness for the defence in the trial of the rugby participant Danny Cipriani, who become convicted of drink-riding in 2016, and has given proof at the trials of other sports activities celebrities and businesspeople.
Paul Williams, a forensic scientist who led the improvement of one of the most widely used breath alcohol exams, stated a few professionals have “shopping lists” of spurious technical facts they request, which includes engineer and service logs for breathalysers, calibration certificate and the readouts from hundreds of previous checks.
The relevance of such cloth, which turned into obtained via Cipriani’s defence crew and unsuccessfully used to project the reliability of the breathalyser result, become wondered by using the the high courtroom choose in the rugby participant’s 2016 trial. In different trials, professionals have cautioned the readouts can be corrupted by the presence of cellular phones, dirt within the air or dental mouthwash.
In every other latest drink-riding case, Joanne Cronshaw, a senior prosecutor in extra Manchester, informed the court docket the Crown Prosecution carrier changed into involved about “a pattern of disclosure requests of this kind now being made automatically in excess alcohol cases”, with “critical practical implications for the assets of the CPS and police”.
Williams stated the exercise had improved within the beyond couple of years on the behest of a few specialized law firms. “if you’re going to head down that direction,” he stated, “you would possibly as well throw the machines out the window.”
however, Tara Boyle, a accomplice at Geoffrey Miller Solicitors, which specialises in motor offences, said defence teams are entitled to scrutinise medical proof. “For every request for disclosure there’s a purpose in the back of that,” she said. “It’s our responsibility to analyze.”
the issue is the state-of-the-art problem to emerge across the disclosure of forensic proof in criminal trials. on the grounds that December police and the CPS have confronted extreme grievance over repeated failures to disclose critical mobile cellphone proof, main to the fall apart of a sequence of rape cases.
A spokesman for the CPS stated: “right and timely disclosure of evidence is critical to ensuring defendants get a fair trial. we’re aware of everyday challenges to prosecution proof made via the defence in drink- or drug-driving instances and we’ve worked with the countrywide Police Chiefs’ Council to broaden guidance for our prosecutors on the best dealing with of such requests.”