How we work

We take each and every case in which we are instructed and thoroughly investigate every aspect of the case circumstances in combination with the forensic evidence.

This method is increasingly applied to cases where other experts, who often have only very limited training and experience, have previously used only a superficial approach,
eg. simply answering a few instructed questions, (common in cases where such experts attempt as many as several hundreds of cases per year).

This full and comprehensive investigative approach is increasingly showing these, only limited attempts by other experts, to be potentially dangerously misleading, and is increasingly leading to changes of plea and subsequent acquittals.

Some examples of the power of such a thorough approach are as follows:

  • An executive accused of rape where the previous experts had not challenged the prosecution findings. Thorough investigation revealed a serious medical condition affected by alcohol, and also evidence of the level of intoxication of the alleged victim which resulted in a unanimous acquittal (2017) (Prosecution abandoned their alcohol report).
  • An individual who had been found to be over the alcohol limit, and where the previous experts had not challenged the prosecution findings. Thorough investigation led to the identification of no fewer than three witnesses who had all observed an individual to have been adding a colourless liquid from a red labelled bottle to the defendant's drink. Also a breach of procedure was found in regard of the use of an alcohol containing inhaler during the quarantine period just prior to evidential breath analysis. This resulted in immediate change of plea from guilty to not guilty (2016).
  • An individual accused of murder (euthanasia) and where the circumstantial evidence revealed that the prescription of fentanyl as a pain killer to an individual suffering end of life extremis had been the most likely cause of death. Checking the prosecution analytical results confirmed this oversight and resulted in the prosecution dropping the murder charge (2016).
  • A care home accused of murdering a resident by over-prescription of Prozac. Consideration of a likely pharmaco-genetic cause resulted in the opposing expert (who had carried out 6000 cases) retracting his report (2010).
  • In a case where it was believed that there was a clear cut outcome of death due to dangerous driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol, and the defence was admonished when it requested more time to investigate the circumstances with serious risk of severe disciplinary outcome: Careful and persistent interview of the highly traumatised defendant in prison revealed that the drugs and alcohol levels detected were potentially likely to have been as a result of a post incident desire to self harm, and also the vehicle was found to be of such a possible poor design and state of disrepair, that it was likely that this situation was to blame / a major contributor for both the accident and consequences. The defendant was given a much reduced sentence (2016).
  • In a criminal case (HSE) involving a multinational defence firm where a munition propulsion system had accidentally discharged in a laboratory, (but without injury), logical and detailed scientific argument was able to prove, (and to be accepted by the prosecution expert), that the majority of the criticisms put forward by the prosecution in regard of the on-site and off-site risks, had no support in scientific principle. The firm was fined a low six figure sum with an estimated saving of five million UK pounds.(2016)
  • In a case involving chemicals, pyrotechnics, black powder/flash powder manufacture, fireworks and a cannabis cultivation operation, where another expert's report could not address the key issues: Following urgent instruction 10 days before the trial at the Old Bailey (1000 pages, 200 exhibits, 3 defence examinations , defendant interview, and production of two reports), the defendant (accused of Section 58, and HSE Offences) was given a suspended sentence and an ASBO. (2015).
  • In a case involving cultivation of cannabis plants for the purpose of treating severe intractable pain, caused by serious injuries arising as a result of a fall from a 100 foot cliff. The defendant received a suspended sentence. The Judge ordered that I act as both expert for the defence and prosecution at Court disallowing the evidence of the prosecution Chief Drugs Expert (2014).
  • An immigrant couple was accused of crushing a 28 day old neonate to death. Investigation revealed the likelihood that an over zealous application of a traditional Sri Lankan herbal/folk remedy (a camphor aerosol/vapour) was more likely to have been the cause.
  • In a murder case, a training shoe was photographed by the prosecution expert and the laboratory photos compared with those obtained by CCTV. It was shown by the defence that the lighting used in the laboratory photographs had caused fluorescence induced patterns that were not visible on the CCTV. Repetition of the photography by the expert who had performed 490 cases showed this defence observation to be correct.
  • In a case involving a thrown improvised incendiary device, the defence report demonstrated that no attempt was likely to have been made to ignite the device, the device was not viable in its intended configuration and that a detected accelerant component could have originated from possible barbecue activity on a balcony (2015).
  • In a case involving an accusation of the rape of a 42 year old by a 15 year old foster child, the Judge dismissed the case upon receiving the defence toxicology report and the defendant was acquitted.(2014).
  • 18,000 page internet download (Explosive materials) extracted from a 250,000 page torrent download: Thorough analysis of the files and completion of three reports (196, 92 and 26 pages) resulted in all section 58 charges (Explosives) being dropped.

scroll here
for more

If you feel that your case could benefit from such a detailed and painstaking approach, please contact us for a discussion of the case circumstances, on 07766 286 001 or by e-mail to

Tel: UK 07766 286 001

You are viewing the text version of this site.

To view the full version please install the Adobe Flash Player and ensure your web browser has JavaScript enabled.

Need help? check the requirements page.

Get Flash Player