Bericon can provide expert assessment of roadside and evidential breath testing procedures including use of Intoxilyzer, Intoximeter and Camic instruments. Were the correct instructions given by the police officers and was the instrument correctly calibrated?
Alongside this, Bericon is able to comment on the functioning and performance of roadside or portable and evidential breath testing instruments (Intoxilyzer, Intoximeter and Camic devices) and assess a person’s lung function or spirometry test results in light of their failure to satisfy the requirements of breath alcohol devices.
In addition, any report will include the assessment of the procedures adopted by the Police when completing the above types of test, in particular those undertaken as part of the MGDD/A, MGDD/B and MGDD/D forms, which can often be critical in a client’s case.
Case Study – Key Information:
– The Defendant was charged with Failing to Provide a Breath Specimen.
– The defendant was the driver of a motor vehicle and was involved in an accident.
– The defendant was requested to provide a roadside sample of their breath and provided a reading of 88 microgrammes per 100 millilitres of breath (88µg%).
– They were arrested and subsequently conveyed to a police station in order to undertake an evidential breath alcohol test.
– It was reported that the defendant made a number of attempts to provide an adequate of sample but was unwilling to do so.
– The attending police officer asserts that the defendant deliberately avoided providing adequate samples of their breath. This was contended by the defendant.
Expert Instruction:
Bericon’s expert was requested to review the process by which the Intoximeter instrument processes an evidential breath sample and assess whether there was any evidence that it was the functioning or operation of the instrument which precluded the defendant from providing adequate breath samples for testing.
Expert Findings:
Bericon’s expert reviewed the CCTV footage of the evidential breath testing process and as a consequence, they made the following comments:
– There was no certainty that the mouthpiece(s) was correctly attached when the defendant attempted to provide breath samples;
– Any mouthpieces used (estimated to have been at least 4 used) should have been retained;
– There was inconsistency in relation to the print-outs both in terms of their number and content given the number of full testing cycles;
– An Officer threw-away a print-out
– The MGDD/A had complete copies of three print-outs and partial copy of a fourth. It was unclear how these relate to the attempts made by the defendant given that only two testing cycles appear to have been inputted (in addition to that performed by second officer);
– In the expert’s opinion it was impossible for the Court to have full confidence in the suggestion that the defendant wilfully failed to provide adequate samples of their breath.
Result:
The CPS discontinued the case against the defendant in light of the report provided by Bericon’s expert.
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.
