Bericon can provide a comprehensive review regarding the functioning of a SCRAM bracelet.
Case Study – Key Information:
– The defendant was the subject of an alcohol abstinence monitoring requirement.
– The defendant was visited at their home address and questioned about their alcohol consumption.
– The defendant commented that they remained abstinent.
– The monitoring authority received a message to say that a “confirmed alcohol alert” had occurred.
– It was further stated that “the drink drive limit is 0.035 therefore the defendant was clearly over the legal limit at the time of the alert.”
– The defendant denies drinking alcohol to the extent that they would have exceed the legal drink drive limit.
Expert Instruction:
Bericon’s expert was instructed by the defendant’s solicitors to review the supplied information about the functioning of the SCRAM bracelet that had been installed on the defendant’s leg and whether there was a scientific support for the suggestion that they exceeded the stated limit on the specific date.
Expert Findings:
In general, alcohol is known to rapidly diffuse across compartments. The elimination of transdermal alcohol is slowed during absorption, TAC results sometimes being zero when breath results are not and during elimination, transdermal results remaining positive after breath results had already returned to zero. This suggests the presence of a third compartment (such as fatty tissues) which takes of alcohol more slowly and holds alcohol after it is eliminated from the water compartment.
Biosensors have been developed to measure transdermal alcohol concentration (TAC) but converting TAC into interpretable indices of blood/breath alcohol concentration is difficult because of variations that occur in TAC across individuals, drinking episodes and devices.
On the basis that the information does show that the defendant consumed alcohol, Bericon’s expert considered whether the information does allow the comment to be made that it necessarily showed that the defendant was “clearly over the legal limit at the time of the alert.”
Consequently, whilst the data already supplied suggests that the defendant had consumed alcohol, it does not, in my view, prove that their breath or blood alcohol concentration would have been greater than 35 microgrammes (ug) per 100 millilitres (ml) of breath or 80 milligrammes (mg) per 100 millilitres of blood.
Bericon’s expert stated it is not possible to form that conclusion with the supplied information given the vagaries of using Transdermal Alcohol Concentration in relation a person’s blood or breath alcohol concentrations.
Are you a criminal defence solicitor looking for an expert witness in this type of case? Contact us today.
Curious to Learn More?
Stay informed about the fascinating intersection of science and justice. Keep reading our blog for more insights into forensic science case studies, expert witnesses, and their impact on the UK legal system.
