Auditors

[Fedster + 1,307]

Inaccurate blood test indicated Mr Hartford had been smoking cannabis.

A chef who lost his job after he was wrongfully convicted of drug driving is suing the forensic firm where his sample was tested.

Billal Hartford, 21, was banned from driving for a year, despite him protesting his innocence, after a blood test indicated he had been smoking cannabis.

He challenged the conviction when he heard in the news about alleged manipulation of results at Randox Testing Services (RTS) in Manchester, and was successful after it emerged the centre had dealt with his case.

He had his sample re-tested and it came back clear.

Mr Hartford won back his licence after serving half the ban and he is now suing the firm.

The conviction cost him his job as he could not travel to work and left him isolated in the hamlet of Skutterskelfe, near Hutton Rudby, North Yorkshire.

He was stopped by police who were responding to reports of a similar car being driven erratically and officers found cannabis in his car.

He gave a saliva sample, was arrested for possession and was taken into custody.

He then gave a blood sample and declined the offer of having it independently tested, and was later charged and convicted at court because of the blood test result.

Mr Hartford said: "The forensic test was seen as gospel, and of course, being in possession simply meant that nobody believed me.

"I'd never drive having taken drugs though, just as I wouldn't drink alcohol and drive."

He is now suing RTS and Simon Wilson, his lawyer of Hudgell Solicitors, said: "There was clear duty of care on Randox Testing Services, given the high importance of the role they were entrusted to take up on behalf of police forces, to ensure the sample was properly tested and the right result reached.

"This did not happen."

Mr Hartford said: "I'm taking legal action because I want something back for them ruining six months of my life.

"I was stuck in the house for most of the time. It was awful and it really affected me."

A spokeswoman for the testing firm said two former employees remained on police bail.

She said: "RTS deeply regrets the distress that has been caused.

"It is committed to doing what it can to resolve the situation and continues to actively support the police investigation."

She said following re-testing, fewer than ten per cent of drug driving cases had been discontinued.

View On Police Oracle

[obsidian_eclipse + 1,202]

Hmm it is worrying if evidence is either tampered with some way. By the sounds of it, given the sample was kept and later proven to be clear, that the equipment was contaminated between tests perhaps?

Still. Driving around with cannabis in his car doesn't make him a saint. However he could have been charged appropriately if the correct results were given.

[SOP + 21]

37 minutes ago, obsidian_eclipse said:

Hmm it is worrying if evidence is either tampered with some way. By the sounds of it, given the sample was kept and later proven to be clear, that the equipment was contaminated between tests perhaps?

Still. Driving around with cannabis in his car doesn't make him a saint. However he could have been charged appropriately if the correct results were given.

If it was only a personal quantity this could of been disposed of out of court, likely resulting in him not losing his job.

I'd be interested to hear the outcome of this case and any explanation from the company involved.   

[Zulu 22 + 4,630]

RTS have a lot to answer for as they have let down the Police Service badly, and have done irreparable harm to this individual and possibly to others as well.

[BlueBob + 700]

I wonder to what extent the force/s using the external providers have done ongoing due diligence or have they struck a contract and just sat back and accepted any and all results that came back to them just because its a 'forensic' orientated  business.  
Raises interesting questions not just about this company but how the police deal with their contractors overall.   Its nt saying the old 'Home Office' system was infallible as they had their fair share or issues, just that they were a single entity to liaise and work with/against.   

[Pavillion 43]

13 hours ago, obsidian_eclipse said:

Driving around with cannabis in his car doesn't make him a saint.

Why not?

[obsidian_eclipse + 1,202]

Why not?

Transporting any sort of illegal substance is ill advised. If it is for personal use, then it being present in the car doesn't bode well.

[Growley + 2,436]

I'd do the same thing in his position.

Taking away someone's driving licence often has far-reaching ramifications on their life.

[Pavillion 43]

21 hours ago, obsidian_eclipse said:

Transporting any sort of illegal substance is ill advised. If it is for personal use, then it being present in the car doesn't bode well.

It hardly meets the threshold of barring one from becoming a "saint". I am sure you also meet the criteria of becoming a saint, if not then glass houses come to  mind.

[Hyphen + 693]

On 27/12/2017 at 13:58, Pavillion said:

Why not?

I’m sure you can grasp the comment made, cannabis is a controlled drug therefore it is a criminal offence to possess this.

In regards to the issue leading to the driving ban it does seem a terrible situation. I think there will be some serious questions to answer. It definitely sounds like incompetence and poor working practice as opposed to ‘manipulation’ but who knows. I’m sure it’ll all come out.

 

[Mac7 808]

It would be interesting to establish why he lost his job. Was it because of the driving conviction? The cannabis possession or because he couldn’t get to work.

Manipulation of samples suggests malpractice. If person(s) have done this deliberately they should be properly investigated and put before the courts.

A good bit of police work let down by a third party.

[BlueBob + 700]

3 hours ago, Mac7 said:

It would be interesting to establish why he lost his job. Was it because of the driving conviction? The cannabis possession or because he couldn’t get to work.

Manipulation of samples suggests malpractice. If person(s) have done this deliberately they should be properly investigated and put before the courts.

A good bit of police work let down by a third party.

As a chef, we could reasonably think of unsocial hours meaning that driving was a necessity of the job or it could be a conviction criteria - in a way, none of it really matters when we consider they're agents of the police and provided false evidence.  Perhaps its less a matter of an individual but rather more systemic in the organisation?  
A quick bit of research shows this is quite an old story in reality going back to the start of the year including a swaith of case reviews being put in place.   And the company's website seems to mention family cases but no criminal case work!