Skip to main content
 
 
 

Are the Police taking the Pee? (Literally)

Are the Police taking the Pee? (Literally)

 

As a physiological basis for analysing a person’s blood alcohol level, urine is far from ideal.  It does not give a real time indication of alcohol level even when collected appropriately.  When collected inappropriately, it is not fit for purpose. 

 

The analysis of alcohol in urine has been part of drink-drive legislation for over 50 years.  Back in the 1960s the British Medical Association recommended to Parliament that for this purpose two specimens of urine should be collected, that these specimens be taken at least 30 minutes apart and that both specimens be analysed.  Unfortunately these recommendations were not translated into statute.  Instead, today’s police procedure forms simply require a detainee to provide two urine specimens within one hour.  The first is discarded, the second is retained for analysis.  What is not clearly understood is why it is necessary to collect two samples in the first place.

 

The purpose of the first specimen is to clear the bladder of urine, since this contains alcohol that has been eliminated from the blood over an unknown period of time.  The second specimen should then comprise urine that has been freshly formed in the bladder and it is this specimen which is approximately representative of a person’s blood alcohol level at the time of sampling.   Emptying the bladder in the first sample is fundamental to the reliability of the second sample.  But the police procedure forms do not explain this; they merely require the presiding officer to record the times at which the first and second specimens are provided.  As a consequence, a multitude of misunderstandings arise from police station to court which stem from a lack of basic training, a poorly devised collection procedure and imprecise terminology:

 

1. POLICE TRAINING. Prior to a breath test detailed paragraphs must be read out loud and verbatim to a detainee; there are no similar requirements prior to the provision of urine specimens however, and police officers are not trained in the same manner as for breath testing.  There is no explanation of the requirement for the provision of the two specimens, no detail to indicate that the detainee should try to empty their bladder with the first specimen and apparently no training given to officers as to what they are trying to achieve with the two specimen method.  Nowhere is this lack of training more obvious than in the witness box, where Magistrates can be misled, albeit unwittingly, by police officers providing nonsensical explanations such as: two specimens are needed because it is necessary to reach "deep bladder urine, just like deep lung air" or, the purpose of the second specimen is to "reach the alcohol that floats on top of the water in the bladder"!  

 

2. NO EXPLANATION GIVEN TO DETAINEES.  Detainees may be told they must provide two urine specimens within an hour, or face a fail to provide charge.  That is all they are told: two specimens or a criminal charge - that's fairly daunting.  With no background knowledge, no understanding of biology or alcohol metabolism and on the basis of that information, a detainee might be forgiven for thinking, " I mustn’t give too much in the first specimen else I might not be able to go again within an hour".  And in doing so, they inadvertently fail to empty their bladder with the first sample such that the second sample contains the same bladder content as the first.   

 

3. COLLECTION CUP SIZE MAY PREVENT BLADDER EMPTYING. A urine collection kit includes: a collection vessel and two sealable containers into which the second specimen is divided.  The collection vessel used can be as small as 250-300ml or as large as one litre.  Studies[1] have found median voided volumes of 330ml for women and 400ml for men.  If the volume of the collection vessel is larger than the content of a detainee’s bladder, the first specimen may empty the bladder.  But equally, if the volume of the vessel is smaller than the contents of a detainee’s bladder, the first specimen in that vessel will not empty the bladder.  And without instructions on what to do with the rest of the bladder content, a detainee may well hang onto it.  Often, as soon as the vessel is handed back, the detainee will provide a 'second' specimen but in fact it is just a continuation of the same bladder content as the first specimen. 

 

The complicating issue here is the concept of two specimens.  In the above scenario, the detainee is confident he has provided two specimens and the officer is satisfied (because he has witnessed) that two specimens have been collected.  But in fact the two specimens are from the same bladder pool and so whilst the procedure has been followed, the intended and critical purpose of the procedure has not been satisfied. 

 

4.  NO PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT FOR A SPECIFIC TIME GAP BETWEEN SPECIMENS, FOR ANY VOLUME RECORDING, OR FOR THE BLADDER TO BE EMPTIED.  Urine enters the bladder at a certain rate and so if the second specimen has a large volume but is given only a few minutes after the first, this is evidence of a bladder not being emptied by the first specimen.  Wilkinson’s Road Traffic Offences is described as the definitive authority on road traffic offences in England and Wales, is heavily relied upon by courts and yet it is particularly unhelpful with regard to this issue.  It states a fact, already obvious from police procedure forms, that there is no requirement recorded in the collection procedure for the first specimen to empty the bladder.  Because Wilkinson’s states this, magistrates apparently dare not draw any negative inference from evidence that shows a bladder has not been emptied by the first specimen.  But this is the entire basis of the requirement for two specimens, it is the whole reason that the procedure was put together this way by parliament back in the '60s, it is the whole reason for police having to spend time waiting for two specimens rather than just analysing the first one.   If the bladder has not been properly emptied, then a second specimen is merely a continuation of the first and therefore not fresh urine and therefore it does not provide a time-relevant alcohol level of the person providing that specimen. 

 

5. CASELAW. There is case law (albeit fairly aged) both for and against cases of this type.  In Prosser-v-Dickeson [1982] RTR 96, the case was dismissed on the basis that there were only 2 minutes between specimens and the detainee did not re-dress, suggesting that the specimens were not different.  In Over-v-Musker [1985] RTR 84, the magistrates also held that two specimens were not distinct when a detainee gave a second specimen only a minute after the first.  An appeal by the prosecutor was upheld, however, on the basis that the detainee willingly provided the second specimen, (although if a defendant has no knowledge of the significance of this, that position is extremely difficult to reconcile with fairness). 

 

It is clear from my experience of magistrates’ comments in court that magistrates can see there are flaws in procedure; they understand that if the bladder is not empty when the second specimen is provided then the subsequent test result may be affected.  Nevertheless, their decisions are hamstrung by:

 

a)    statute which makes no requirement for the first specimen to empty the bladder, despite this being absolutely critical to the reliability of the second specimen;

 

b)    case law which places the onus on an a detainee to comprehend procedure, even when that procedure is not adequately explained;

 

c)     procedure which does not specify a minimum time gap between the specimens, despite the BMA’s original recommendation of at least 30 minutes and despite the physiological evidence that a short time gap indicates an improperly-emptied bladder;

 

and, hence, magistrates feel they must convict.

 

It is bewildering that there are pages and pages devoted to breath tests in the police procedure forms and yet barely half a page on urine procedure.  As a consequence of this failing, urine test procedures are misinterpreted, magistrates feel they are obliged to ignore evidence of inadequate sampling (because they have no mandate to do otherwise) and defendants are convicted on the basis of unreliable evidence.    

 

 

Miss Jennefer Gray BSc(Hons), MSc, TIFireE, MRSC

 


 

[1] Urology Nursing 2011; 31(3)

 

Subscribe To Mailing List

To unsubscribe click here

What our customers say...

  • Good quality work.

    Solicitor - December 2017
  • You guys are simply the best.

    Solicitor - September 2018
  • Adrian Armstrong is an excellent witness who easily out-shone the police expert.

    Barrister - November 2018
  • As always, your firm goes out of its way to assist.  Together with the high standards of reports, it is why I have used your firm since the 1980’s.

    Solicitor – May 2018
  • Easy to read report.

    Solicitor – July 2018
  • Quick, accurate and easy to speak to expert instructed (Mr Tarpey).

    Solicitor - December 2017
  • Prompt, succinct, communicative and pleasant to deal with.

    Solicitor – January 2018
  • I found the quality of the report very high, and I am aware that Dr Davey had to work hard to hit the deadline because of other commitments.

    Solicitor – January 2019
  • Exceptional service.

    Solicitor – November 2018
  • Please thank Orla Sower for her excellent work on this case.

    Solicitor – November 2018
  • I have previously attended a demonstration of the techniques used by the experts at Keith Borer Consultants.  What they can achieve is genuinely astonishing.  I require my instructing solicitor to immediately contact Keith Borer Consultants and seek out their assistance.

    Colin Buckle, Barrister – September 2018
  • We have used KBC for our forensic requirements for many years. The service has always been excellent, timely and useful.

    Solicitor – November 2018
  • Mike Prime’s presentation on paper, in conferences and from the witness box was excellent on what is a very difficult and sad case.  My client’s family particularly wished to express their gratitude.  They found that he made “more sense than the prosecution expert”.

    Solicitor – October 2018
  • Eager to assist at very short notice and very helpful on the phone.

    Solicitor – May 2019
  • Quick response to our request; friendly members of staff.

    Solicitor – September 2018
  • Many years ago, when working for another firm, we regularly consulted yourselves and always received an outstanding service.  It’s good to find that after probably 25+ years, your standards have not slipped.

    Solicitor – March 2018
  • Please thank Sarah Morley for her sterling work.

    Solicitor – November 2018
  • Mrs Allan gave extremely clear evidence.

    Barrister – July 2019
  • I was very impressed both with the clarity of Dr Davey’s report to the layperson, and her even-handedness. The objective tone of the report and the fact that the opposing party’s expert agreed with the analysis gave Dr. Davey’s evidence a huge amount of credibility. I would recommend her to anyone in need of similar evidence and have no doubt that her evidence was vital to us winning the case.

    Diarmuid Laffan, Barrister - June 2019
  • Alan Henderson is always contactable, his work is always impeccable and juries have always liked him.

    Solicitor - November 2017
  • Report prepared well and is a format we could understand. Written in a way that the lay person can understand.

    Solicitor – June 2018
  • Mr Armstrong was very professional and presented his analysis to the Jury in a very helpful way.

    Barrister – July 2019
  • Great communication and updates.

    Solicitor – December 2018
  • Very prompt professional service.

    Solicitor – November 2017
  • Please pass on my thanks to Emma Youngson for the speed at which she completed the report; I am very grateful.

    Solicitor - July 2019
  • Both our client and I were very impressed by your expert evidence. I will be singing your praises for years to come.

    Solicitor – July 2019
  • Please thank Richard Brown very much for the rapid turn round of this report.

    Solicitor – March 2018
  • Expert always contactable and very helpful (Alan Henderson).

    Solicitor – January 2018
  • Quick telephone answering, excellent understanding of the issues facing us i.e. prior authority, court dates changing at last moment, need for rapid responses.

    Solicitor – December 2018
  • Alan Henderson was excellent.  Very knowledgeable on this area of law.  Provided an excellent report, with speed.

    Solicitor – November 2018
  • Brilliant job and response to late and urgent instructions – very much above and beyond what we would expect.

    Solicitor – July 2018
  • Instant reply on whether they can help or not; excellent with keeping us updated; fantastic report.

    Solicitor - April 2018
  • We have been using your services for a number of years and have always been very happy with the service provided.

    Solicitor - April 2019
  • I have to thank you for all the help you have given me in preparing for this and in giving your evidence, which I think was very convincing and went a long way to this acquittal. 

    Solicitor - March 2019
  • Pleasant and efficient replies and support by all staff.

    Solicitor – November 2017
  • Responded efficiently with clear advice.

    Solicitor - December 2017
  • The service we have received is 5* and very much appreciated.

    Solicitor - November 2017
  • Dr Helen Davey was, as always, excellent. From her initial report to her attendance at a conference and court. Her expertise is apparent and her ability to explain difficult issues is outstanding.

    Counsel – August 2018
  • You provide a good service and work within the constraints of the LAA funding.

    Solicitor – April 2018
  • I cannot speak more highly of the quality of the report.  Mr Prime is now my ‘go to’ expert.

    Solicitor – September 2018
  • You have always been excellent.

    Solicitor – May 2018
  • I was impressed by the time and detail taken in producing the proposal of (cell site analysis) work which made it really easy to understand how the service was going to help us.

    London Borough of Brent Council - December 2017
  • We were kept continually up to date about the progress of the report.

    Solicitor – May 2018
  • The service Ryan Knight provided was excellent.

    Solicitor – January 2018
  • Your service was exemplary.

    Solicitor – January 2019
  • Consistently reliable. Reports are very easy to read.

    Solicitor – July 2019
  • Very good, in fact excellent!

    Solicitor – February 2018
  • I found Mr Prime to be a very good natured and competent expert witness who presented well in the witness box.

    Barrister – July 2019
  • Your report is fantastic and much appreciated.

    Private client - April 2019
  • John Tarpey's evidence was critical to the success of this case.

    Senior Counsel – February 2018
  • Quick, efficient and professional.

    Solicitor - February 2019
  • Thank you very, very much - impeccable service as per usual.

    Solicitor – April 2018
  • Richard Brown was excellent and his professional manner/quality of evidence won the day for us - compared with the prosecution expert! Quality counts!

    Solicitor - June 2018
  • Have used many times previously and always been extremely satisfied with the service and reports.

    Solicitor – November 2018
  • Your firm remains my first choice for collision expert reports.

    Solicitor - November 2017
  • Mr Cook’s report was easy to follow for those who are not experts in this field and explained the method and conclusion fully.

    Solicitor – October 2018
  • Alan Henderson is a leading expert in his field and I have used him for a number of serious cases over the years.

    Solicitor - November 2017
  • Local, efficient, competitive and quick.

    Solicitor – February 2018
  • Alan Henderson was a very knowledgeable witness, clearly very familiar with his subject matter and capable of explaining it too. I would not hesitate to use him in the future.

    Barrister, August 2019
  • Very quick, very clear report.  Excellent service at all times.

    Solicitor – March 2018
  • Great report - it really shows off your skills compared to the prosecution (so-called) experts. Thanks so much.

    Counsel - June 2018
  • Thank you for writing the report so quickly. Very helpful.

    Solicitor – August 2018
  • Always try to instruct, if possible, due to excellent service provided.

    Solicitor, September 2019
  • The prosecutor found Dr Davey's report particularly well considered which undoubtedly informed his decision not to proceed with the case. Can I thank you very much for your help in this matter.

    Solicitor – December 2018
  • Compassionate and professional attitude.

    Private client – March 2018
  • The Evidence given by Mr Dunnill resulted in the trial of issue being found in the client's favour, thereby avoiding immediate custodial sentence.

    Barrister, August 2019
  • Mr Cook’s evidence was clear and concise and did not waiver under cross-examination.  His efforts in this case are greatly appreciated.

    Solicitor – October 2018
  • I am really grateful for your assistance in this case; I am sure it made the pivotal difference.

    Solicitor – May 2019
  • Please pass on my gratitude to Mr Marryat for being able to compile a report in such a quick turnaround. Much appreciated.

    Solicitor, August 2019
  • Speed, efficiency and accuracy.

    Solicitor – June 2018
  • I prefer your company because you are relatively local and approachable.

    Solicitor – March 2018
  • Mr Farley was exceptionally good in the witness box and very robust under cross examination. I would not hesitate to instruct him again.

    Counsel – May 2018
  • Comprehensive and comprehendible expert’s report; first class response to queries.

    Solicitor – December 2018
  • Overall helpful and efficient service.

    Solicitor, September 2019
  • Superb outcome in the case ... as a direct result of Mr Prime discussing matters with his counterpart.  Very, very impressive.  Good, too, with the client.

    Counsel – April 2018
  • Used KBC for years; always found you efficient and helpful.

    Solicitor – May 2018
  • Mr Bunter was fantastic.

    Solicitor – February 2018
  • Mr Prime attended punctually on each day of this case.  He possesses a very approachable and helpful attitude.

    Solicitor – October 2018
  • Thanks to Sarah Morley for her help: her evidence was very important in bringing this case to justice and it is greatly appreciated.

    Solicitor - August 2019
  • Clear information about cost, speed and efficiency of report.

    Solicitor - March 2019
  • We have used you many times before and have never been anything but entirely satisfied. We will continue to do so.

    Solicitor – June 2018
  • Excellent communication, timescales met despite difficulties with police & CPS.

    Solicitor – November 2018
  • We have been instructing KBC for the last 20 years or so, and they are listed as our first choice on our database. I have never had any cause for complaint and the experts have always acted with integrity and professionalism.

    Solicitor – January 2019
  • Fiona Taylor provided quick responses to all of my questions and queries. The service was very professional throughout, from my initial enquiry to receiving the Report.

    Solicitor – July 2018
  • We have worked with you for a number of years and find your work accurate and reliable.

    Solicitor – April 2018
  • After the initial phone call, I knew I had contacted the right organisation.  The report just reaffirmed what I already knew.

    Solicitor – October 2018
  • Richard Brown always provides accurate and impartial advice, which makes the advocate’s job so much easier when advising clients or presenting the case in court.

    Barrister – November 2018
  • Speedy, efficient and professional as always!

    Solicitor – March 2018
  • The attention to detail in Mr Tarpey’s preparation and his knowledge of the case shone through when he was cross-examined.

    Senior Counsel – February 2018
  • Extremely efficient.

    Solicitor – August 2018
  • Complete satisfaction with services.

    Solicitor, September 2019
  • Fab service from your Ross Donnelly & Mark Henderson - thank you.

    Counsel – March 2018
  • Known to us as credible experts, who provide a first class service.

    Solicitor – December 2018
  • I was delighted by Mrs Tweedy's professional and thorough approach.

    Mr Saltrese - September 2019
  • It is about professionalism, efficiency, attention to detail, courtesy and kindness.  It is a very, very long time since I have dealt with any group that was as quick to respond and as efficient as you all were.

    Private Client – April 2018
  • Service had a quick turnaround and any queries were quickly addressed.

    Solicitor - March 2019
  • Mr Prime was able to provide assistance with matters as they arose, which was invaluable.

    Solicitor – November 2017
  • Thank you so much for your impeccable service.

    Solicitor – November 2017
  • Richard Brown’s knowledge of the subject matter was excellent, his report clear and detailed, and his explanations … instilled confidence.  I would happily use him again.

    Counsel – February 2018
  • Keep doing what you do.

    Solicitor – November 2017
  • I found the service to be very professional throughout.

    Solicitor, October 2019
  • Very thorough report.

    Solicitor – June 2018
  • Extremely quick and efficient.

    Solicitor – September 2018
  • Attentive. Quick. Professional.

    Solicitor – July 2018
  • Very impressive and thoroughly excellent performance in the witness box.

    Counsel – February 2018
  • Used you many times previously and the service is always exceptional.

    Solicitor – January 2018
  • Reasonably priced compared to other experts.

    Solicitor – May 2019
  • I would like to thank you both for all your help on this case, and the tasks you had to perform at short notice.  Your assistance was greatly appreciated.

    Solicitor - May 2019
  • Report was delivered on time as promised.

    Solicitor - December 2017
  • The service was both timely and accurate - exactly what was required in a developing trial.

    Solicitor – November 2018
  • We were impressed by the quality of the report and competitive cost.

    Solicitor – July 2018
  • Thank you very much, again, for the professionalism of your expert witnesses.

    Barrister – November 2018
  • Impressed with all aspects – knowledge, presentation, lines of communication.

    Solicitor – January 2018
  • We would be extremely grateful if you could thank Ms Gray again for her incredible report.

    Solicitor - March 2019
  • Efficient and very responsive.

    Solicitor - April 2019
  • Prompt and efficient communication, met the deadline, carried out the instructions.

    Solicitor – October 2018
  • Responsive, fast turnaround, quality reports, legal aid rates.

    Solicitor - April 2018
  • Helpful, speedy and good quality.

    Solicitor – May 2019
  • Clear communication, very good advice, good quality of forensic report.

    Solicitor – January 2019
  • Prompt and efficient handling of initial enquiries and arrangements to inspect Prosecution exhibits.

    Solicitor - March 2019
  • Would use the service again with no hesitation.

    Solicitor – January 2018
  • Very good testimony on all accounts; measured and reasonable.  There is nothing I would change about Mr Dunnill’s evidence or manner in giving it.

    Counsel - January 2018
  • Prompt and reliable service.

    Solicitor – October 2018
  • I instructed Mr Armstrong on a recommendation from another counsel and will certainly recommend him to my colleagues in future.

    Barrister – November 2018
  • May we thank Mrs Allan for an excellent report.

    Solicitor – March 2018
  • Always very quick, but also thorough and well written. Always very professional.

    Solicitor – November 2017
  • Based on many previous instructions to assist with our cases, the reports produced by your Experts are always helpful.

    Solicitor – July 2018
  • Mr Cook completed the report very quickly and to a high standard, despite the very short timeframe in which he was given.

    Solicitor – October 2018
  • Always a good service.

    Solicitor – September 2018
  • Extremely prompt service.

    Solicitor – July 2019
  • Very good.

    Counsel – May 2018
  • Friendliness and complete empathy in what was a very stressful situation for me.

    Private client – September 2018
  • It is always easy to contact KBC and to get a prompt reply.

    Solicitor – July 2019
  • We find you reliable and expeditious.

    Solicitor – July 2019
  • We are especially impressed by the Expert's willingness to discuss a case over the telephone before a formal instruction and the fast turnaround for completion of reports.

    Solicitors – June 2018
  • We have been extremely impressed with your work throughout the entire course of the proceedings.

    Solicitor - November 2017
  • Very quick response to both our initial email enquiry and all emails. Helpful and approachable staff and experts.

    Solicitor – August 2018
  • We have used KBC for many years: always helpful, plenty of experts & LAA seems to be happy with estimates for CRM4 application purposes.

    Solicitor - August 2019
  • Quality service, helpful staff, prompt reports.  Our company has used Keith Borer Consultants for many years.

    Solicitor - February 2019
  • Outstanding.  Mr Prime was conscious of duty but compelling in his approach to the evidence.

    Counsel – April 2018
  • I don't know what you are paying Alan Henderson, but I'd say it isn't enough.

    Solicitor - November 2017
  • John Tarpey's expert report was full and allowed me to present the material to the court effectively and allowed me, with his assistance, to effectively challenge the prosecution expert's assertions.

    Barrister – November 2018
  • You are considered the ‘go to’ expert service within our firm.

    Solicitor – January 2018
  • We did a generic Google trawl and ‘short-listed’ you because of your experience/credentials but (having contacted others) selected you because you were efficient, quick off the mark and personable.

    Private Client – April 2018
  • We compared you with another less costly service, but considered you to be more professional.

    Solicitor – February 2018
  • Excellent reputation.

    Solicitor – May 2018
  • Reliable and trustworthy.

    Solicitor – August 2018
  • No improvement needed.

    Solicitor – July 2018
  • Competitive price – within LAA Standards; approachable, polite staff and great expert.

    Solicitor – January 2018
  • Have used Keith Borer in the past for many different types of reports and would do so again.

    Solicitor – December 2018
  • Have used you before and always found you efficient and easy to deal with.

    Solicitor – August 2018
  • Ultimately, the mere fact that we had instructed yourselves as experts and the difficulties the police had … in my view went some way towards convincing the CPS that they needed to review the case and ultimately discontinue it.

    Solicitor – April 2018
  • Excellent service from Alan Henderson and his report assisted me in cross examining the Crown witness.

    Solicitor – May 2018
  • Thank you for getting back to me so quickly. This is exactly what we needed.

    Solicitor – July 2019
  • Easy to find on Google and seemed like decent, legitimate company at decent price.

    Private client - March 2019
  • Efficient and helpful in a complex case.

    Solicitor – December 2018
  • Amazing!

    Counsel – July 2018
  • Easy to use BAC calculation form, fast turn around.

    Solicitor, September 2019
  • The website had all the key words that I was looking to see for an expert in the area of interest.

    Solicitor – October 2018
  • We are very grateful to Mr Marryat for all the hard work he has done for us.

    Solicitor – June 2019
  • Mr Brown and the work he did were excellent in every respect.  We are grateful to him for his prompt and professional assistance.

    Solicitor – September 2018
  • Richard Brown is an excellent expert witness.

    Barrister – November 2018
  • We are very grateful to Mr Prime.  He made himself available at short notice and was contactable over the phone beforehand in order to clarify/confirm certain aspects of the case.

    Solicitor – May 2018
  • Helpfully swift responses – in respect of both fee estimates and reports.

    Solicitor – January 2018
  • I was very grateful to your Mike Prime for assistance he gave me on a case recently when he went out of his way to assist, despite the fact a trial was imminent and it became clear I would not have the chance to formally instruct at that point. I thought that was very impressive.

    Solicitor – October 2018
  • Helen Davey’s report is excellent, as are all the reports that she has written for us.  She is always very willing to provide advice and answer questions and is also a very nice person.

    Solicitor – July 2018
  • Many thanks for your very helpful and professional report.

    Solicitor – June 2019
  • As always, I am entirely satisfied by the services provided by your company.  These are provided to the highest level.

    Solicitor – January 2018
  • That is a very good statement; please thank Ms Kiernan for me.

    Solicitor - December 2017
  • KBC’s efficiency never ceases to amaze me!

    Solicitor – January 2018
  • Quick, efficient, approachable expert (Mr Fagan), with excellent communication skills.

    Solicitor – January 2018
  • We’ve had years of excellent service from you.

    Solicitor – August 2018
  • Quick response, easily contactable.  Never had to instruct expert for this type of report and you provided us with all the information to enable us to request the necessary consent from CPS etc.  Very helpful.

    Solicitor – November 2018
  • Gave a very knowledgeable and detailed account which no doubt assisted in securing the successful appeal.

    Counsel, November 2017

Keith Borer Consultants is a division of Orchid Cellmark Ltd, a company registered in England at 16 Blacklands Way, Abingdon, OX14 1DY.

Registered No. 4045527; VAT registration No. GB 750 0292 64

Website developed by Problue Solutions