Recent Cases

R v B

B , a taxi driver, was attacked by 2 men whilst waiting outside a fast food outlet. The prosecution alleged that he had used excessive force to defend himself when he repeatedly struck both men over the head with a torch which he had been carrying. Following the incident B ‘marked’ both men with a spray which was detectable by ultra violet light and carried a pungent odour. The ‘marker spray’ was developed by the manufacturer to allow the victims of crime to mark their assailant’s so they could be easily identified by the police. The prosecution analysed the spray and identified one of it’s ingredients as being a noxious substance. The spray was therefore defined as a prohibitive weapon.

We instructed a firearms expert and forensic scientist to respond to the prosecution’s expert analysis. It became clear that the prosecution expert had misinterpreted test results. The ingredient identified as noxious is commonly used in the food industry being present in greater strengths in baked beans and gravy powder. Upon reviewing our reports the prosecution withdrew the charge and B stood trial on the ABH offences alone. At the trial the jury were unable to decide upon a verdict.