In September this year, our client was arrested following a car accident.
Following this incident, the police arrived on scene along with paramedics. Our client was taken to the hospital where it was alleged that he had disclosed to hospital staff that he had consumed two beers prior to driving, earlier in the day.
Upon being discharged from the hospital, our client was taken into custody at Islington police station.
Our client refused to provide a DNA sample, due to having both Trypanophobia, a fear of needles and Haphephobia, a fear of being touched.
Consequently, our client was charged by the police with failing to provide specimens for analysis. In this case, the client requested that we represent him.
Mr U pleaded not guilty to the charge and was directed by the Court to obtain medical evidence to support this statement from his GP.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) served a Section 9 notice, stating that any “written statement” by a witness is equally admissible to oral evidence, with their main witness who was an attending officer at the scene. This included details covering the events which led up to the client being charged including the client’s refusal to provide a specimen of blood.
In response, Stuart Miller Solicitors caseworker Savannah Loizides made key edits to the submitted witness statement. The trial relied heavily on the key information that our caseworker made edits to, and therefore she advised that the witness may need to attend court, as the CPS will inevitably disagree with the edits made to the statement.
Further, our caseworker Savannah Loizides requested for initial disclosure, which is unused material held by the Crown Prosecution Service which can weaken the prosecution’s case against our client Mr U. In this request Stuart Miller Solicitors queried whether there was any Body Worn Video (BWV) that the police recorded at the time of arrest or CCTV from custody which covered the events that took place while our client was held in custody.
Following this, Stuart Miller Solicitors requested an urgent case management hearing, which is a hearing held to allow the Court to identify and understand what the real issues in the case are. With this information they will be able to consider these issues and whether they can be narrowed before trial. This case management hearing was related to the CPS’ non-disclosure of initial evidence ahead of Mr U’s imminent trial.
In response, CPS discontinued the case on the basis that there is not enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction. Our client was cleared of his charge of failing to provide specimen for analysis.
If you or someone you love has been charged with a driving offence or failing to provide a specimen upon request, contact us now. We are available 24/7 to help you beat your case.