Hudgell Solicitors™ | Multi-Party Actions | Forensic Drug Sampling

Forensic Drug Sampling

Inaccurate Testing

National news reports in February 2017 detailed allegations of manipulation of forensic results at Randox Testing Services (RTS) – a company used by police forces across the UK. Samples re-tested have been found to be clear, leading to convictions being quashed.

Hudgell solicitors are representing drivers who are seeking to get convictions overturned for inaccurate tests and gain compensation. Investigations have revealed that around 10,000 tests from 42 forces may have been affected, including in convictions relating to violent crime, sexual offences and unexplained deaths.

Who undertakes forensic testing?

Randox Testing Services holds contracts with nearly all UK police forces to provide toxicology test results which detected the presence of drugs in hair, blood, and urine. Some of these test results were relied upon to convict people of criminal offences. A large proportion of the cases were for Road Traffic Act offences such as driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

I have been tested – what can I do?

If you think that Randox produced inaccurate forensic evidence in your cases and was used to secure your conviction, these are the steps to take:

  • Ask for you your file to be reviewed to find out if Randox carried out the testing. Our specialist in criminal law will be able to assist with the process and dealing with your appeal.
  • If you are successful, our human rights team will help you to claim compensation on a “no win no fee” basis.

Relief for those already contacted by Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)

The true scale of the scandal around Randox Testing Services is only now beginning to emerge as more people are being contacted by the CPS to be told their convictions were not reliable.

Our specialist team are handling both appeals and damages claims to provide a comprehensive legal service to those affected. Many of those, represented by Hudgell solicitors, had felt their convictions to be unjust. They could not understand how they had been found guilty but, felt their hands were tied as they were up against what they believed to be undisputable scientific evidence.