Geoffrey Miller Solicitors

Case Studies

Adam L-IT Consultant- North Shields

This client was prosecuted for failing to provide a specimen of breath. The client argued that he did try and provide on the device but did not provide an adequate sample for the Camic Datamaster equipment used by the police.

His original instructions were that he did not recall being warned that failure to provide would result in a prosecution.

The Prosecution served the CCTV footage of the client’s time in custody and were fairly confident that the client may change his plea after he had seen it. Although the CCTV showed what happened in the custody suite, the Camic was out of view of the camera so although we could hear what was being said, we could not see it.

We instructed an expert on the Camic equipment and asked him to consider the CCTV. He prepared a report to say that is it sounded like the device was working correctly but he did pick up that the officers gave the client wrong and conflicting instructions on how to blow into the device.

This in itself could have led to our client’s acquittal but when we attended court on the day of the trial none of the Prosecution witnesses attended. The file stated that they had been “warned” to attend but all witnesses said they hadn’t. The Prosecutor applied for an adjournment but we opposed this. The court refused the Prosecution application and the Prosecutor offered no evidence.

CLICK HERE to fill in our online enquiry form

Request a Callback