Hi Ange

I want to keep a permanent record of this for future reference so it is stored here 
for my reference and so I cannot lose it.

Thanks for the phone cal, I enjyed talking, as  always do, and am glad Georgina is 
looking forward to the new house.

I have been thinking about your friend and his position and looking stuff up in 
Archbolds, which any solicitor/barrister will be familiar with, I bought a cpy for £165 
a couple of years ago and it is one of the few books that 
can be relied upon in court along with "Stone's Justice Manual".

I have put a lot of though into this and hope he considers it or at least gets a 
second opinion on what I have found.  I do realise that it is his future and really 
important to him that he keeps his licence.

I understand his position a little better now and am a ittle more positive regarding 
the difficulty that the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) may have in proving his guilt.
This is not to say he cannot be found guilty, especially if 
he attempts to mount a defence on somewhat spurious grounds.

What I mean by the above is that it is the CPS who have the duty to prove a case 
against him and not for him to prove his innocence.

He MUST make a request for advance disclosure of the following as soon as possible:

1.) The printout of the first Intoximeter's reading (at the roadside),

2.) The printout of the second Intoximeter's reading (at the station),

2.) Evidence of any certificate signed by an authorised analyst

3.) The pocket notebooks of the officers involved, (including the WPC)

4.) All the statements that WILL be used against him,

5.) Any UNUSED material that has been submitted to the CPS by police.


Any of this that cannot be supplied is an indication thatthey have not got their 
act together,

Also, the above can be used to assess the vality of the claim of the Police in 
this matter and any irregularities.  Further it is necessary to find out if the 
CPS are going to rely on "Back Calculation" and, if so, what is their 
reason for this.

"Back calculation" is where they might try to rely on a later breath test (say 
at the station) and attempt to calculate what the levels of alcohol were at the 
time of the alleged offence on the road.

If they are going to use "back calculation", this might indicate that the  original 
breath test was too borderline or that they do not have a valid "Printout" from the 
Intoximeter used at the roadside, on which they made the arrest 
and are trying to substantiate an arrest that was made when it should not have been.

All the above SHOULD be obtained from either the "Process Department" of the Police 
station dealing with this charge or the CPS office AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.  This will make 
it clear to the CPS that they are not going to have a straightforward 
"cheap" guilty plea.

Regarding the trial, any tedency to underdress or appear less than "respectable" 
in the sense that mmagistrates expect, can only make it more difficult and not any 
easier for him.

If the CPS have a botched case then offering a submission of "no case to answer" 
might be the best option, but, of course, it is up to him if he wishes to risk his 
licence on what he feels is best rather than the awkward position that 
the CPS may be in.

It is especially advantageous that he said nothing on the day/evening and this is 
more reason for him NOT to mount some sort of defence that he did not seem to have 
when the Police were offering him the chance to have his comments recorded,
ie when the Police said "Anything you do NOT say may harm your defence if relied 
upon in court".

If he now "relies" on stuff he did not say on the day, then the court may just find 
him liable on the basis that what he NOW says, is too late.

It seems better to force the CPS to do as much work as poss starting with "advance 
disclosure" of the stuff mentioned above.

I hope all goes well sis,

Regards andy