Hair alcohol testing labs criticised

UK’s leading hair testing labs were recently criticised Legal decision for their hair testing procedures and conclusions.

Trichotech (part of the Concateno group) one of the UK’s leading hair drug and alcohol testing companies was recently criticised in the High Court for procedural failures leading to misleading conclusions as to a mother’s use of alcohol  (They have promised to review their procedures.)

The decision follows the case of a mother who nearly lost her child as a result of misleading interpretations of hair alcohol testing.

A hair alcohol test on a mother wrongly alleged to have been misusing alcohol has been criticised by the High Court – potentially calling into question some tests done in similar cases.  The mother insisted that she had given up alcohol but the hair test samples taken from her allegedly proved otherwise.Hair test nearly costs mother her baby

Both major UK hair testing laboratories had produced reports showing that the woman may still have been using alcohol.

TrichoTech was mentioned three times in the Judgement

• for not conforming to the SoHT guidelines on testing whole-length 3cm samples (paragraph 22 iv))
• for not clarifying the evidence where they declared the detection of EtG was inconclusive, and could mean consumption or abstinence (paragraph 36 of the judgment),
• for providing ‘answers which, in hindsight, only further confused the position’ (paragraph 44)

The other hair testing laboratory concerned in the judgement was Trimega Labs as follows:-

Trimega Labs was referenced 5 times in the Judgement

• for not disclosing at an earlier stage of this case that they had tested for EtG as well as for FAEE (paragraph 38)
• for making a “bald assertion that ["these markers are only present when the subject consumes alcohol"] is not supported by research” (paragraph 42)*
• for not disclosing results of further testing carried out at a later stage (paragraph 50)
• for continuing to assert that the presence of markers indicated consumption (paragraph 51)
• for providing witness statements stating (for example) that the results tend “to indicate continued low alcohol consumption” which “went much further than the evidence…would support.” (paragraph 52)

The hearing went some way in clarifying hair testing procedures by hair testing laboratories.

It led Justice Moylan to state that ‘as a result of this [Trimega statement] and other evidence in this case the Local Authority asserted, and continued to assert until the hearing before me, that the mother had consumed alcohol in the period since July 2009.’Family Law full extract of case

Lessons to be learnt

MHS consultants have always asserted that hair alcohol tests should not be considered in isolation to other evidence.

For further information and free expert assistance in this area call us now for independent advice by leading consultants on hair alcohol/drug testing.

Call us now: 0845 873 9602

Best Advice call 0845 873 9602