R v Bolton Magistrates Court, ex parte Scally ; R v Bolton Magistrates Court, ex parte Greenfield ; R v Eccles Magistrates Court, ex parte Meredith ; R v Trafford Magistrates Court, ex parte Dura-Jordan

By a notice of motion dated 8 August 1989, the applicant, Josephine Sarah Scally, sought, inter alia, an order of certiorari to quash her conviction by Bolton Justices on 9 September 1988 of driving a motor vehicle with excess alcohol in her blood contrary to section 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1972. The grounds of the application were that, inter alia, the police investigation of her alleged offence was flawed by the contamination of a blood sample provided pursuant to statute; the police possessed a monopoly of the only relevant evidence admissible in the case against the applicant, who was obliged to accept that their analysis was accurate; the opportunity for any independent analysis was lost; there was a gross irregularity in the proceedings before the justices stemming from their initiation on no admissible evidence; evidence wrongly presented was accepted and acted upon by the applicant, whose guilty plea was thereby vitiated; the police through the offices of the Crown Prosecution Service had acted in breach of natural justice; and in the interests of justice and fairness her conviction should be quashed.

By a notice of motion dated 14 September 1989, the applicant, George Raymond Greenfield, sought, inter alia, an order of certiorari to quash his conviction by Bolton Justices on 23 August 1988 of driving a motor vehicle with excess alcohol in his blood contrary to section 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1972. The grounds on which relief was sought were substantially the same as those relied on by Miss Scally.

By a notice of motion dated 11 October 1989, the applicant, John Meredith, sought an order of certiorari to quash his conviction by Eccles Justices on 21 October 1987 for driving a motor vehicle with excess alcohol in his blood contrary to section 6(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1972 as amended. The grounds of the application were that, inter alia, he had pleaded guilty to the summons on the basis of the information provided by the prosecution as to the result of the blood-alcohol analysis and he did not know and could not have known at the time when his plea was entered that the blood sampling kit used in the extraction of his blood sample contained a swab which might have been contaminated by alcohol; and his plea of guilty was entered as a result of evidence provided to him by the prosecution which had subsequently been shown to be unsafe and unreliable.

By a notice of motion dated 18 October 1989, the applicant, Frederick George James Durran-Jorda, sought, inter alia, an order of certiorari to quash his conviction by Trafford Justices on 9 December 1988 of driving a motor car with excess alcohol contrary to section 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1972. The grounds on which relief was sought were that, inter alia, there was an irregularity in the proceedings before the justices stemming from their conviction on no evidence in view of the contamination of a blood sample obtained from him pursuant to statute; the prosecution possessed a monopoly over the only relevant admissible evidence against the applicant who was obliged to accept that the analysis provided by the Home Office was accurate; the opportunity for any independent analysis was lost and the applicant was bound to plead guilty; the police investigation of the alleged offence committed by the applicant was flawed by the contamination of the blood sample and the prosecution of him was in breach of natural justice; and in the interests of justice and fairness the conviction should be quashed.

The facts are stated in the judgment of Watkins L.J.