{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021499448732083794, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014884233737596472, 'mean_word_length': 4.654205607476635, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Extent of Powers of Judicial Review

A conviction obtained by dishonesty on the part of the prosecution may be quashed on judicial review. The question raised in R v Bolton JJ, ex p Scally [1991]2 WLR 239; 155 lP 84 was whether that process may apply with that result (1) where something less than dishonesty is alleged; and (2) where the wrongdoing is that of a person not directly concerned with the prosecution process. In that case, each of the four applicants (whose applications were considered together) was convicted of an offence of driving with a blood-alcohol concentration in excess of the prescribed limit, contrary to s 6(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1972 (now s 5(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988). In each case, the applicant was convicted on a plea of guilty tendered because each was faced with the seemingly conclusive results of the analysis of a blood specimen which showed that his blood had an excess content of alcohol. It was, however, later discovered that, throughout the area in question, some of the blood sampling kits then in use in connection with suspected cases of this offence contained medical cleansing swabs which themselves contained alcohol. It was conceded that the CPS was throughout ignorant of the fact that there were any circumstances which may have had the effect of producing an inaccurately high result. Nor were such circumstances noticed either by the police who produced the swabs or by the doctors who used them to take blood samples. When the facts were discovered, the CPS very properly decided not to prosecute the outstanding cases in which the kits had been used. What of the cases in which they had been used and which had resulted in conviction? When, as in this case, applications were made for judicial review, there was a difference of opinion. The Chief