Notable Results



87: MAY: R v Pennington: In the case of accusation of arson by firework, the Crown discontinued the case.

86: MAY: R v Neale: In a case of accusation of rape, following production of a detailed report the case was discontinued and the Crown offered no evidence.

85: MAY: R v Thomas (DNA, Firearm( (Acquitted).

84: APRIL: R v Khan (DNA, Firearms) Acquitted.

83: JANUARY: R v Cunningham (DNA, Robbery) All three defendants were acquitted.

82: JANUARY: In a case involving the detection of traces of DNA on a sports bag recovered from a van involved in an armed robbery, consideration of the possibility of secondary transfer resulted in all three defendants being acquitted.

81: JANUARY: In a case involving the detection of the DNA of the defendant on a cache of firearms: following the experts conference and the defence revealing to the prosecution expert that a likely very efficient mechanism of secondary transfer had been identified as a result of surveillance video and human observation, the prosecution declared no evidence and the defendant was acquitted.


80: DECEMBER: Assisted EOD in the examination and identification of a historical cache of training pyrotechnics from the estate of a deceased Army Officer.

79: NOVEMBER: Gerard Byrne: In a case in Eire a report was prepared regarding the neuro-toxicological and cardiotoxic effects of hydrogen sulphide present in sewer gases, for a damages claim, made by an individual involved in clearing fortnightly accumulations of putrefying animal residues from blocked industrial drains without any respiratory protection.

78: NOVEMBER: R v El Hassan: In a case involving Ricin, a report was prepared regarding the toxicology of this compound to assist defence Counsel.

77: NOVEMBER: R v Khan: In a case involving accusation of assault by a brother of the defendant, following an argument with the father, the brother was found to have been heavily involved in a programme of weight training/body building abusing Androgenic Anabolic Steroids, female hormones and insulin medications. (Acquitted).(Prosecution presented no evidence following receipt of the toxicology report).

76: OCTOBER: R v Richards: In a case involving driving with excess alcohol, (despite evidence in two reports by other experts) exhaustive investigation of the circumstantial evidence in the case demonstrated, that no less than three individuals could testify that the defendant's drink had been observed to have been spiked with a colourless liquid, from a red labelled bottle thought to have been vodka. The plea was changed to not guilty.

75: AUGUST: In an urgent case involving alcohol and child care proceedings (mother accused of being drunk in charge of a child under 7 years old). No evidence was found that the mother had ever been significantly intoxicated. It was noted additionally that no set alcohol limit had ever been set for such an offence. (Acquitted).

74: AUGUST: R v Douglass: In a case involving DNA traces on a silenced compact hand gun, exhaustive investigation of the circumstances of the case revealed that the defendants lived in close proximity, possibly sharing clothing and towels at a gym and when training at home, and which could have led to inadvertent transfer of the minute trace of cellular material containing DNA which was detected by DNA-17. (Acquitted).

73: JULY: In a case involving an individual, who had consumed alcohol, accused of raping a female at a railway station, exhaustive investigation of the circumstances of the case revealed serious medical issues regarding undiagnosed ADHD syndrome. The level of alcohol in the blood of the alleged victim was also investigated and the prosecution report discarded. (Unanimously acquitted).

72: JULY: In a case involving improvised fireworks, prepared from match head composition and bolt gun double base propellant, and designed to produce a loud report; the defendant avoided a sentence of detention for an indefinite period and instead was released several weeks after the trial at the end of a period of detention.


DECEMBER: In a case involving 14 grams of crack cocaine the defendant was deemed to have purchased the material for his own use.

OCTOBER: In a DNA case in Northern Ireland where the defendant was accused of multiple child rape with associated use of an offensive weapon, the defendant was acquitted.

69: AUGUST: In a DNA case involving an accusation of assault by spitting, the defendant was found to suffer from Xerostomia (lack of production of saliva), and consideration of this situation along with the other DNA evidence in the case, resulted in her being acquitted without the need for defendant cross examination.

68: R v International Defence Firm: JULY : In a criminal case 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 several million UK pounds.

67: R v Sylton Legister: JUNE : In a case involving a 60 year old Jamaican male apprehended with 10 kg of likely poor quality cannabis in his car, and who claimed that it was for the purpose of the palliative treatment of his terminally ill, 88 year old mother who was in extremis and beyond further medical help, using an infusion of this material in a traditional Jamaican "Bush Bath": Following provision of forensic drug and toxicology evidence, the defendant was given a 2 year suspended sentence.

66: R v Perkins April: 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.

Tel: UK 07766 286 001


65: R v CHARLENE WILSON (AUTUMN): A charge of possession with intent to supply cannabis was reduced to one of possession. The cannabis was being used to treat the severe pelvic pain due to Symphysis Pubis Dysfunction.

64: R v Biddle (12/2015): In a case involving a large cannabis growing operation: demonstrated that a significant amount of seized plant material was in fact low value waste "Trim" (trimmings from cannabis flowering tops), showed that: the sentencing guidelines yield per plant was appropriate, the quality was unproven (affecting value), thus reducing appropriately, the estimates of crop yield, quality and hence overall value.

63: R v Hajila (09/2015) In a case involving attempted murders by stabbing, a report was prepared involving assessment of the likely toxicological effects of olanzapine and carbamazepine, in combination with heavy alcohol consumption, cannabis and smoking, on the memory of an individual suffering from symptoms of audiovisual hallucinations as a result of severe psychological challenges and PTSD. The findings of this complex report were accepted by all parties to the case.

62: R v Gazeley (08/15): In a case involving assisted death by claimed asphyxiation of a late stage Multiple Sclerosis/Alexanders disease sufferer (a wife of 55 years) in fear of locked in syndrome and in extremis, the defendant was accused of murder. Defence examination revealed that palliative fentanyl had been prescribed and this was confirmed by re-interrogation of the UHPLC MS-MS data at the defence examination. This drug in combination with palliative oral morphine was likely to have been responsible for the death of the patient, (who had been refusing food, water, treatment and medication for some time), and as a result of the defence examinations, discussion between experts, and lack of any evidence of any effective attempt at asphyxiation, the charge was reduced to one of manslaughter under the grounds of diminished responsibility. (Suspended sentence).

61: R v Cain: In a case involving accusation of rape and alcohol/SSRI interactions, mid trial at Kingston Crown Court, (just after defence case almost complete): Instructed at 1600, case-file provided 1800-2200, full report delivered by 1030 next day.

60: R v Harris (05/15): 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.

59: R v Brown (04/15): 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.

58: R v Tiwana (03/15): In a case involving an accusation of manslaughter, the defendant was acquitted when the toxicology report revealed long term cannabis and cocaine abuse in an alleged victim who was suffering from a congenital heart defect.


57: R v Rowe (10/14): 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.

56: R v Ghulam (09/14): In a case involving Cannabis (interpreting text messages, estimating yield and price) the
defendant was given a fine and a suspended sentence.

55: R v Greenstreet (08/14): In a case involving prescription drugs and driving (diazepam, tramadol, codeine), upon receipt of the toxicology report, the prosecution discontinued the case (acquitted).

54: R v Ghiat (08/14): 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.

53: R v Zaman (08/14): In a case of serious injury in a road traffic accident an accusation of failure to provide was dropped
by the prosecution upon receipt of the report. (Acquitted).


52: R v Howell (12/13): In a case of suspected driving under the influence of Cannabis the prosecution offered no evidence and the defendant was acquitted.

51: PP v Sjogren: A case involving possible Meiteisho (Autobrewery syndrome). Imprisonment was avoided, the license of the defendant was not confiscated, and the defendant was not banned from driving.

50: R v Sharif: (09/13) The yield per cannabis plant was reduced by one half from the claimed prosecution value, through
presentation of the latest (2013) research reported in the peer reviewed.

49: R v Peach (08/13): Case involving accusation of inappropriate touching during a photo shoot (DNA evidence)
Defendant Acquitted.

48: R v Finnikin (06/13): In a case of home grown cannabis plants, the purpose of the home grow operation was accepted as being for the treatment of the pain of the terminal disease Sarcoidosis.

47: R v Briody (05/13): A case of seized chemicals (Explosives). Sentence reduced.

46: R v Lyons (04/13) Alcohol/Tramadol/Cocaine: RTA (Acquitted).

45: R v Baqa: (04/13) 18,000 page internet download (Explosive materials): All section 58 charges (Explosives) Dropped.


44: R v Riaz: (15/11/12) DNA High value drug seizure (Acquitted).

43: R v Ahmed: (25/10/12) (Oral Evidence provided) (Bristol Youth Court) DNA Burglary (Acquitted).

42: R v Slaughter: (22/10/12) (Maidstone Crown Court) Touch DNA on a drug wrap (Acquitted).

41: R v Ejeta (Aquitted) (03/10/2012) (East Croydon Crown Court)
This case involved an accusation of the intent to manufacture crystal meth (methamphetamine) using equipment and chemicals seized. Following exchange of numerous scientific expert reports the prosecution decided to offer no evidence.
"A preliminary report gained the defendant bail."

40: R v O'Dwer (Acquitted) (29/09/2012) (Bristol Crown Court)
This case involved the sale of "Legal High's" in the form of mixtures of natural herbs. Demonstrated that the prosecution analytical results were likely to have been neither quantitatively accurate or representative of the products analysed. This was accepted by the prosecution, and occured as a result of only a limited instruction to screen the samples having been given at the time of analysis. (Interesting analyses of enantiomers of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine were encountered).

39: R v Abdulrahman Saleh (Saliva DNA Robbery):
The client was acquitted when the prosecution withdrew the allegation.

38: P. Singh Coroners Enquiry 05/07/12 (Manchester):
Gave evidence in regard of rare side effects of Cefuroxime.

37: R v Michelle Smith 09/04/2012 (Swansea):
Prepared a report in regard of toxicity of dihydrocodeine and metabolites to a neonate.

36: R v Ertakan 15/06/12 (Central Criminal Court): 
Analysis was presented for the AlQaeda Chef recipe "Make a bomb in the kitchen of your Mom" Inspire magazine.
Result: Defendant acquitted

35: R v Hadley Pascal Foster 05/2012 (Snaresbrook):
Upon receipt of our report the charge was reduced from S-18 GBH to S-20 GBH.

34: R v N Thomas 11/2/2012 (Bristol) : 
A case of possession of amphetamine was discontinued and the defendant acquitted due to control blank analytical solvent analyses having not been used between GCMS analyses of case samples.

33: R v Daniel Jones 05/03/12 (Hove): 
In a case of rape involving alcohol and diazepam, following the expert’s conference at Court the charge was dropped and the defendant acquitted. This case was remarkable as the reason for the acquittal was because it could not be certain in this case that the defendant could have recognised that the alleged victim was capable or not of giving consent.

31: R v Sampson 17/1/12:
The charge of possession of heroin for the purposes of sale to others was reduced to that of possession. This was achieved by experimental demonstration that the largest part of the seizure crystallised upon cooling after dissolution, resulting in irreparable blockage of the syringe, and hence was unusable (as claimed by the defendant), and also through a consideration of the likely usage rate of the very impure heroin seized.


30: R v Crawford (2011) Gunshot Residue (Bristol):
Our observations of the likely common usage of very large numbers of cartridge operated bolt guns and staple fasteners having primer activation and also very often nitroglycerine as a propellant energetic additive in construction, appears to have been recognised by the implementation in forensic laboratories of new precautionary briefings to those visiting, that they should have showered and changed their clothes before coming to the laboratory if they have recently used such devices.

29: R v Jones (Drugs) (Cardiff):
Demonstrated to the court that the defendant’s experience in growing cannabis was so limited that his attempt at hydroponic growth was likely to have resulted in the observed loss of the entire crop.

The charge of intent to supply was rescinded.

28: R v White (Drugs) (Cardiff):

Prosecution estimate of yield from 68 plants reduced from 6Kg to 2Kg due to spider mite infection.

27: R v Jackson (Toxicology) (Bristol):

Gave evidence in relation to the effects of Clonazepam/Alcohol and especially a failure to take medication for three days and then increased doses just prior to the incident.

26: PP v Sjogren (Toxicology) (Sweden):

Possible endogenous alcohol (ongoing).

25: McCluckie v Worrall (Toxicology) (Manchester):

“Dram Shop” alcohol, road traffic accident, high quantum, civil case (ability of a passenger to detect whether the driver was unfit to drive).

Result: Our evidence prevailed over the opposing most experienced expert.

24:   R v Furmage (DNA) (Plymouth):

DNA traces were shown to have been likely to have been transferred to a gun by likely innocent means.

Result: Defendant acquitted on 9 charges of firearms and drug trafficking.


23: R v Furmage (2010) DNA (Plymouth):
DNA traces were shown to have been likely to have been transferred to a gun by likely innocent means.
Result: Defendant acquitted on 9 charges of firearms and drug trafficking.

22: R v Cannella (Toxicology) (Brighton):
Evidence was presented by report in a Cannabis intoxication, road traffic case. The defendant was demonstrated to be within the recommended levels and the charge of driving while intoxicated by cannabis was rescinded.

21: R v Kodua Maafo (Drugs) (Snaresbrook):
The defendant was accused of possession of £33,000 worth of cannabis hash oil with intent to supply. Argued the possibility, that this was a contaminated sample of a traditional Ghanain hair product treatment.

Result: Suspended sentence on appeal.

20: R v Illing (Toxicology) (Isleworth):
The defendant experienced being responsible for an air rage incident after taking alcohol and a benzodiazepine. Toxicological report prepared.

Result: Sentence reduced by two thirds.

19: R v Zahida Bhana (Toxicology) (Murder accusation): 
Investigation of the toxicological circumstances, of the death in a care home as a result of prescription of a Selective Serotonin Re-Uptake Inhibitor drug.

Result: Opposing expert who had performed 6000 other cases retracted his report.


18: R v Lusha: (Improvised Explosives/Ricin) (Preston):
Demonstrated, through trials, that the improvised mixture claimed to have been intended to be used as an explosive was in fact inert.

17: R v Kanmi (Ricin/Explosives):
Demonstrated that the militia video for the preparation of Ricin, claimed by the prosecution to be viable, was in reality flawed in principle.

16: R v Nasser: (Cannabis) (Birmingham):
Demonstrated that the method for analysis of THC in cannabis flowering tops was flawed in design, and this was accepted by the prosecution.


15: R v Kheradmandi (DNA) (Lewes):
Defendant was accused of sex with a minor (Rape). Analysis of the situation revealed the possibility of an innocent explanation for the evidence.

Result: Defendant acquitted.

14: R v Abdulla (Improvised Explosive Devices: London Glasgow Bombings):
Analysis of the scenes and exhibits involving improvised car bomb type explosive devices utilising propane cylinders.

13: R v Ahmed Ali et al (Explosives) (Liquid Explosives/Transatlantic Airliner plot) (Woolwich):
Report selected from those of four experts to defend all eight defendants.

Only expert in 10 years of proceedings to locate literature describing research into the atmospheric pressure evaporation of hydrogen peroxide.

12: R v Gale (Firework Accident):
Evidence appeared to show that a rocket fired by children on a beach was likely to have been responsible for the client’s injuries and not a professional display.

11: R v Sakhi (DNA):
Defendant was accused of rape of a minor. Analysis of a DNA mixed profile revealed insufficient evidence to identify the defendant as being the perpetrator. This was confirmed by bite mark analysis.

10: R v La (Industrial Cultivation of Cannabis) (Drugs): (Leicester):
Case involved 17 rented houses in Leicester used to grow and possibly also breed 5000 cannabis plants.

9: R v Tang (Drugs) (Wolverhampton):
1Kg of best Cannabis Skunk (bud) demonstrated to have been likely to have been for the defendant’s own personal use.

8: Williams v H (Pesticides):
Investigated the deaths of horses grazing on a site, surrounded by arable fields.

7: R v Campbell Norris (Leeds Insulin Serial Killings) (Toxicology) (Newcastle):
The case was stymied, as the presence of material which gave an immune reaction similar to that of Insulin type proteins was detected at very high levels in the blood of a victim.

This could have arisen as a result of a cross reaction with an innocent substance and no technique existed in order to confirm the presence of Insulin at trace levels in blood.

A new method was rapidly developed by us, as part of the case preparation, which detected and identified Insulin protein parent ion in a minute trace of blood remaining in the 4.5 year old vial.

This was a UK casework first and also a world first at this sensitivity.

6: Muragamoorthy (Toxicology) (Central Criminal Court):

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.

Result: Couple acquitted.

5: R v Haywood (Counterfeit Viagra) (Kingston on Thames):

Inspected spectroscopic (13-C, 1-H and MS-MS) and chromatographic data.

4: R v Hirst (Toxicology) (Inner London):

The defendant had committed an offence of racially aggravated abuse following a hospital surgical procedure that had involved treatment with benzodiazepines.

A specific syndrome was identified for the particular benzodiazepine used and the defendant was acquitted.

3: R v Carter (CCTV):

A training shoe was photographed and the laboratory photos compared with those obtained by CCTV.

It was shown 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 situation to be correct.

2: R v Bourgass (Toxins (Ricin)) (Wood Green Ricin Factory):

Inspected the exhibits, and also laboratory analytical results, in the case of an illegal laboratory involved in the production of toxins such as Ricin.

1: R v Young (Drugs) (High Wycombe):

A child was accused of possession of a tablet of amphetamine, and who claimed that the tablet was Ritalin supplied by a classmate who had been prescribed the legitimate pharmaceutical.

Demonstrated that a simple spot test could not have differentiated between Ritalin and Amphetamine.


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