Should I contact a solicitor to claim for compensation? Options

[hyh]

I have received a letter from CPS informing me that the reliability of the evidence used against me in relation to a drug driving offence has now been called into question. I was very slightly over the allowed limit for THC. As the toxicology evidence has now been deemed unreliable, surely I can quite confidently claim compensation or possibly receive an out of court settlement for loss of earnings and other consequences I've faced. I had to give up my job as a delivery driver. I was earning good money, and my manager would give evidence that I was one of his top drivers. This was also during nationwide lockdowns (ban started 1st June 2020) when I was a key worker, and could not easily find alternative work.

Am I best to find a good solicitor in this situation?

[Advertisement]

[TMC Towcester]

To be clear - you were banned as a consequence and have now been formally exhonerated?

[cp8759]

Can you post up a redacted copy of the letter?

The first order of business must be to overturn your criminal conviction, but it's not entirely clear what the CPS is saying about that, if anything.

Whether you can claim compensation and if so from whom, again depends very much on what's gone wrong. If the lab messed up the toxicology report, my understanding is that your claim would be against the lab rather than the police or the CPS, as both the police and the CPS would have acted in good faith based on the evidence available to them.

I wouldn't bother with a solicitor for something straightforward like this.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 - 10:00

[hyh]

I am uploading a copy now.

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[TMC Towcester]

Unless I'm misreading/misunderstanding this isn't as you describe.

This Synlab has been found to be unreliable around the margins of their tests, so if the initial test was very close to the legal limit they're basically saying you could ask for the case to be reopened.

Much depends on how much or little your were over the limit - if it was a fraction you may be able to get the conviction overturned, but if well over, less likely. You have to have the conviction quashed first before pursuing recompense...............

How you go about this I have to leave to those wiser than I...............

This post has been edited by TMC Towcester: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 - 19:05

[hyh]

I was close to the limit. Slightly over.

[TMC Towcester]

I was close to the limit. Slightly over.

There's your answer then................

[The Rookie]

As an easy first step you could present this to the convicting court and ask them to reopen the case under S142 of the magistrates court act 'in the interests of justice', this costs you nothing, if they agree then basically your trial would occur afresh and I suspect if you plead not guilty and show that to the prosecutor they would then drop the charge.

S142 gives the court wide ranging powers to sort out small issues without cluttering the system with appeals etc.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/43/section/142

[hyh]

As an easy first step you could present this to the convicting court and ask them to reopen the case under S142 of the magistrates court act 'in the interests of justice', this costs you nothing, if they agree then basically your trial would occur afresh and I suspect if you plead not guilty and show that to the prosecutor they would then drop the charge.

S142 gives the court wide ranging powers to sort out small issues without cluttering the system with appeals etc.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/43/section/142

Thank you that is very helpful.

As per as earlier reply, seeking compensation would be something I have to do after clearing the conviction? I.e. starting a court claim against synlab for my losses?

[The Rookie]

Well first you have to have the conviction overturned, otherwise you have no case for a claim.

Then you need to be sure you can validate your actual losses and show it was caused by their negligence, you may want to FOI the FSR to get the full details they have. You don't automatically have a claim as you seem to think, though they may settle to avoid court.

[cp8759]

As per as earlier reply, seeking compensation would be something I have to do after clearing the conviction? I.e. starting a court claim against synlab for my losses?

There is no automatic right to compensation. First you need to get the conviction overturned.

You'd then need to send pre-action correspondence to the lab to determine what on Earth has been going on. At the moment even if you get the conviction overturned you do not have enough to bring a claim, because to bring a claim you need to prove (and the burden of proof rests on you):

1) That the lab owed you a duty of care,
2) That the lab breached that duty of care i.e. was negligent, and
3) That you suffered a loss as a result of that breach.

Point 1 should be pretty easy, point 2 you have no evidence for so you need to get it from the lab (either through pre-action correspondence or through formal disclosure), point 3 you probably can collate the evidence but you need to put it in a court-ready format.

Sort out the conviction first and we can help you with the rest.

[andy_foster]

Noting that you (generally) can't claim for "pure economic loss" for negligence.

[southpaw82]

As an easy first step you could present this to the convicting court and ask them to reopen the case under S142 of the magistrates court act 'in the interests of justice', this costs you nothing, if they agree then basically your trial would occur afresh and I suspect if you plead not guilty and show that to the prosecutor they would then drop the charge.

S142 gives the court wide ranging powers to sort out small issues without cluttering the system with appeals etc.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/43/section/142

I’m not sure s 142 can be used that way.

[The Rookie]

I wasn’t convinced, but reading it, it doesn’t preclude it? If they did it would be the easiest route.

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 - 21:04

[southpaw82]

I wasn’t convinced, but reading it, it doesn’t preclude it? If they did it would be the easiest route.

The apparently wide scope of the statutory words has been restricted by case law (which I can’t be bothered looking up right now).

[cp8759]

Wasn't section 142 recently used when someone was arrested and convicted for a non-existed offence under the Coronavirus Act 2020?

Failing that, what's the best route, an out of time appeal to the Crown Court?

[southpaw82]

Wasn't section 142 recently used when someone was arrested and convicted for a non-existed offence under the Coronavirus Act 2020?

Failing that, what's the best route, an out of time appeal to the Crown Court?

No doubt it has been used for a variety of purposes but that doesn’t mean it was correct to do so. The authorities speak of “mistake”, though it doesn’t seem that a mistake is vital to the jurisdiction. The overriding test seems to be the interests of justice but equally there is authority that the section cannot be used as a back door route of appeal. The difficulty with an appeal to the Crown Court is that an appeal following a guilty plea is only against sentence. Unless s 142 is used (arguably incorrectly, though I don’t think anyone is likely to complain) then the route does seem to be an appeal with an application to vacate the guilty plea as having been made in error - I’ve not got the authorities to hand for that.

[notmeatloaf]

The CPS are reviewing all cases where evidence from Synlab was used going back to 2019, starting with the most recent cases. Possibly a solicitor could expedite your case, or you could call them and ask first for free.

At the moment you can't claim compensation because your conviction still stands. The issue with the tests was that the reported level is potentially incorrect, not that it wrongly reported THC when there wasn't any.

AFAIK no details have been published as to what cases have defective evidence but they are still using Synlab results in new S5A cases after "review". So there is no way of knowing if it affects 1%, 10%, 50% or whatever number of cases. E.g. if it is just one assay that is the problem it could be that only samples analysed on that machine.

Either way, I think you need to see whether you can overturn the conviction before thinking about compensation.

[cp8759]

Presumably if the prosecution asks for the case to be re-opened under section 142 on the basis that the prosecution should have never been brought, the court would accept that and allow the case to be re-opened?

[hyh]

It's taken a while but... see attached photo.

What do I need to prepare?

This post has been edited by hyh: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 - 11:52

Attached thumbnail(s)