Crime Solicitors

There has been significant media coverage of the “Randox Scandal” over the past 12 months after it was revealed that laboratory staff had been tampering with the results of blood analyses. The extent of the tampering is relatively unknown, but it has now been estimated that as many as 5,000 convictions could be considered “unsafe” and overturned after these faulty testing revelations.

Since the story came to light there has been a thorough investigation reanalysing thousands of samples and revisiting each case that could possibly have been affected, to determine whether it was justified to convict the suspect.

Yorkshire Police have since uncovered that Randox Testing Services (used by the police to analyse blood samples) may have fallen below the industry standard of testing, which is another serious revelation on top of the alleged tampering.

Most laboratories use a “double extraction method” during their blood analysis. This is where two aliquots of blood are withdrawn from the sample provided to them and analysed to get an aggregate result. However, Randox have been using single extractions until it eventually changed to the double extraction method in 2016 to “adjust to the wider practice by Forensic Science Providers within the UK”. This was, after guidance by the Forensic Science Regulator in March and September 2015, stated that laboratories must undertake analyses “in replicate” and that results should be “the mean of the replicate measurements” (i.e. the average of the two results).

There has already been an order to retest the samples in affected cases (provided they are still available) but the process may take up to three years to complete. More than 10,000 criminal cases (mostly those of drug driving offences) have already been questioned by an investigation into the alleged tampering by a pair of Randox’s scientists.

Despite the guidance on the issues, Randox have maintained that they were “fully satisfied with the process” of single extraction and its reliability.

Duncan Lewis’ View

Our drug driving lawyer, Neil Sargeant, has been challenging the reliability of blood samples used in drug driving cases for many years and there have been various issues raised during this time.

Arguing that the single extraction method was unsuitable for this type of case has proven effective for a number of years, as when the evidence is scrutinised during trial it often fails to meet the evidential standard expected in criminal cases.

In every case we deal with we are met with resistance from the other side that seems exclusive to road traffic cases. Every issue raised is rigorously scrutinised and questioned. From the very first hearing the Prosecution often make the process difficult, particularly when it comes to disclosing material relating to the analysis, which we are entitled to. On occasion when it has seemed likely that the court would order the material to be disclosed, cases have been discontinued by the Prosecution before they made it to trial.

This begs the question as to why? Were the prosecution aware of the problems with the analysis and did not want them being exposed during a trial or is it merely coincidence? We can only speculate in respect of this but the recent news raises serious concerns about the quality of evidence used to secure convictions in thousands of cases. Had action been taken sooner, miscarriages of justice in a large volume of cases could almost certainly have been avoided.

We are of the view that the single extraction method should never have been considered suitable for analysis of blood in this type of case and argue that Randox should not have obtained accreditation using this method.

As a society, we trust the police and the prosecution to do what is right and ensure that incidents like this do not happen. There will no doubt be a huge number of people who have simply accepted the charge as a result of this trust and these findings could result in an increased mistrust for our justice system. The UK prides itself on having one of the most effective criminal justice systems in the world and it is disappointing that evidence of questionable reliability may have resulted in so many convictions.

Author Neil Sargeant is a Road Traffic specialist within the Duncan Lewis Crime Department, based in Harrow. He has specialised in Road Traffic Law since 2008, establishing close working relationships with some of the country’s leading experts in this field and maintaining an outstanding record of client acquittals. His specialist expertise stretch across road traffic law, but are is most extensive in:

• Drink Driving (with breath, blood or urine samples);
• Drug Driving;
• Failing to provide a specimen for analysis whether this be breath, blood or urine;
• Being drunk in charge of a vehicle;
• Any type of road traffic case that involves a procedure conducted at hospital;
• Dangerous & Careless driving; and
• Cases involving a fatality.

For specialist advice please call our Road Traffic specialist Neil Sargeant on 02031141145 or email him on neils@duncanlewis.com.

Duncan Lewis Motor Law Solicitors

Recognised by the independent directory Chambers & Partners as a top tier criminal defence practice, Duncan Lewis’ Crime department has a wide selection of services with a highly skilled team of solicitors. Our services include Motoring Law, with particular expertise in drug and alcohol-related motoring offences. We can provide free and comprehensive legal advice on any motoring prosecution, regardless of the allegations.

It is crucial that you seek legal advice immediately, as an early opinion in your case can make a significant difference to the end result. Duncan Lewis Solicitors can be on hand to deal with whatever motoring law issue you may have.