Case Study: Drink Driving Charge Dropped Before Trial Due to Missing Evidence
The Allegation
Our client was charged with drink driving after providing an evidential specimen at the police station which allegedly showed they were over the legal limit.
The prosecution case appeared straightforward. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) relied on a Streamlined Forensic Report (SFR1/SFR2) to support the charge, indicating that the alcohol reading exceeded the prescribed limit.
Like many drivers in this position, our client assumed there was little that could be done.
What Didn’t Add Up
On review of the case, something immediately stood out.
The CPS had served an SFR2, but crucially, they had not served the full Analytical Data Pack (ADP) - the underlying forensic evidence that supports and validates the reported result.
This is not a minor omission.
The ADP contains the detailed scientific data, calibration records, and quality checks that allow the defence to properly assess:
- Whether the analysis was carried out correctly
- Whether the equipment was functioning as it should
- Whether the result can be relied upon in court
Without it, the defence is being asked to accept the result at face value, which is not how the criminal justice system is supposed to operate.
The CPS Position
Rather than serving the missing evidence, the CPS took an unusual stance.
They suggested that we should contact the laboratory ourselves to obtain the Analytical Data Pack.
This is not the role of the defence.
The burden is firmly on the prosecution to prove their case and to serve the evidence they intend to rely upon. It is not for the defence to build the prosecution’s case for them.
How We Challenged It
We made it clear that:
- The prosecution had failed in their disclosure obligations
- The case could not properly proceed without the Analytical Data Pack
- It would be unfair and improper to expect the defence to obtain key evidence on behalf of the CPS
We refused to accept incomplete evidence and pushed the issue ahead of trial.
The Outcome
Shortly before trial, the CPS discontinued the case.
With no Analytical Data Pack served, they were unable to properly rely on the alleged alcohol reading, and without that, there was no realistic prospect of conviction.
Our client avoided a conviction, disqualification, and the long-term consequences that come with a drink driving offence.
Why This Case Matters
This case highlights a point that many drivers (and even some legal representatives) overlook:
A forensic result is not enough on its own.
It must be supported by the underlying data, properly disclosed, and open to challenge.
Key Takeaway
Just because a result says you are over the limit, it does not mean the case is proven.
The prosecution must:
- Follow correct procedures
- Disclose the evidence in full
- Prove the reliability of their results
If they don’t, the case can fall apart, as it did here.
Need Advice?
If you are facing a drink driving allegation, do not assume the case against you is watertight. At MAJ Law, we don’t just look at the result, we examine how that result was obtained, recorded, and presented.
Because sometimes, the detail makes all the difference.
