have you been caught driving drunk?
Drink driving offences (alcohol driving offences) and
drug-related motoring offences are taken very seriously by courts.
In addition to a criminal record, a convicted drink driving
motorist can expect a lengthy period off the road and there is a
possibility that the motorist may be given a community penalty or
even a custodial sentence. Moreover, drink driving law imposes very
detailed procedural requirements on the police and prosecuting
authorities, which makes this a minefield for the unwary. It is
therefore important to obtain specialist legal advice on drink
driving law at the earliest opportunity.
There are two principal drink driving offences which are
prosecuted by the police, namely driving with excess alcohol and
being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle. There is a significant
difference in these two offences, in that following a conviction
for an offence of driving whilst over the limit, a disqualification
is mandatory, whereas the court has a discretion not to disqualify
in the event of a conviction for being drunk in charge of a motor
vehicle. It is therefore vitally important to consider all of the
evidence in detail, to ascertain what, if any, offence has been
committed. Speak to one of our specialist drink driving solicitors
today to find out more.
Find out more about what happens if you have
been caught drink driving.
drink driving defence
Even though it may seem that once you have been stopped by a
police officer and failed a roadside screening breath test, you are
facing an open and shut case, there may be a number of possible
defences open to the motorist who may have committed a drink
driving offence.
Many defences to drink drive allegations are of a technical
nature, but even factual defences will often require supporting
expert evidence.
At every stage, important questions have to be asked about the
process adopted by the police. The Motoring Offences team at Blake
Lapthorn solicitors has many years experience in defending
motorists accused of drink driving offences and are used to
guiding motorists through the complexities of these procedures. We
can call upon the services of leading medical experts in this field
as required.
drink drive penalties
The offence of driving with excess alcohol is punishable with up
to six months in prison, or a fine of up to £5,000, and
disqualification from driving for a minimum period of 12 months (36
months for a second offence).
If the charge is one of being in charge of a motor vehicle
whilst over the limit, a prison sentence of up to three months is
the maximum penalty. A driving disqualification or endorsement with
10 penalty points will also be ordered.
Even when a motorist is convicted of these offences, this is not
necessarily the end of the matter. It may be possible to avoid a
driving disqualification.
The imposition of a driving ban is extremely likely to have a
significant adverse impact on both the family and working life of
the motorist. It will therefore be imperative to try and reduce the
length of any such ban. In these circumstances it is important to
speak with specialist legal practitioners to advise on how best to
present crucial mitigation and keep any ban to a minimum, which may
in the end be the difference between retaining a job and losing
it.
drink driving articles
- is speedy justice always good justice?
Our Motoring Offences team asks whether the use of 'virtual courts'
by the police in Kent to deal with drink driving cases more quickly
is really a just solution.
- are we ignoring the dangers of driving
drunk?
Our Motoring Offences team highlights the fact that the number of
drink-drive arrests in the first five days of Thames Valley
Police's festive campaign has almost doubled from the same period
last year.
View further drink driving news and
updates.
drink driving case studies
client in Thames Valley acquitted of charge of being drunk in
charge of motor vehicle
J recently instructed Tim
Williamson of the Motoring Offences team to represent him in
connection with an allegation of being drunk in charge of a motor
vehicle.
J was found by Thames Valley
police to be slumped in the driver's seat of his vehicle outside his home
in Oxford in a near unconscious state with the key in the ignition
and turned so that the engine was engaged. J was arrested and
taken to St Aldates police station in Oxford where he was required
to provide two specimens of breath using a Lion Intoximeter breath
testing device. He provided two specimens of breath and was
found to be nearly five times over the legal drink drive
limit. He was charged with the offence of being drunk in
charge of a motor vehicle and was bailed to attend Oxford
Magistrates Court.
He accepted the breath alcohol
reading and that he was in charge of the motor vehicle. He
pleaded not guilty to the charge on the basis
that there was no likelihood of him driving whilst he was over the
legal drink drive limit. This is known as the 'statutory
defence' to a charge of being drunk in charge of a motor
vehicle. J contended that there was no need for him to
drive for the rest of the day and he was clear in his mind that he
would not have done so having drunk alcohol. An expert was
instructed to report as to when exactly he might have been back
below the legal drink drive limit.
The case was listed for trial at
Oxford Magistrates Court on 8 November where he was represented by
Tim. The court was concerned with a single issue; whether
or not it be satisfied
that it was more likely than not that J would not have driven
whilst he was over the legal drink drive limit.
J gave evidence about his
lifestyle, how he spends his days, where he was going and what he
was doing at the time of his arrest and crucially what he would
have done for the rest of the day had he not been spoken to and
subsequently arrested by the police.
After hearing a closing speech from
Tim, the magistrates found J not guilty of the charge, dismissed the
case against him and ordered that his costs be paid from Central
Funds. The client left the court with his licence free of
endorsements and his good name in tact. Needless to say he was
delighted with the outcome.
drink driver has case dropped on grounds of insufficient
evidence
Barry Culshaw of the Motoring Offences Team was consulted by S
who had been charged with failing without reasonable excuse to
provide specimens of breath for analysis during the course of an
investigation into whether or not a drink driving offence had been
committed. The proceedings had been initiated by Hampshire
Constabulary and the proceedings were pending before Southampton
Magistrates Court. S maintained that she had used her best
endeavours to provide both specimens of breath but had been unable
to do so. On Barry Culshaw's advice a not guilty plea was entered
and an expert commissioned to prepare a report. The expert's report
when obtained was favourable to S's defence and a copy was lodged
with the court and served on the Crown Prosecution Service.
Investigations revealed that it would appear that S had been
blowing into the Intoximeter device too hard for both specimens to
be accepted by the device. Despite this problem the police officer
conducting the breath test procedure had failed to inform S of the
problem.
Pursuant to Barry Culshaw's advice a detailed defence statement
was lodged with the court and a copy served on the Crown.
Representations were also made at length as to the merits of the
defence. A fortnight prior to the trial date the Crown decided to
discontinue the case on the basis that there was "not enough
evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction". S's
decision to tender a not guilty plea was accordingly vindicated and
came as a considerable relief to S who, in the event of conviction,
was facing a minimum period of disqualification from driving of
three years and a hefty financial penalty.
drink driver has case dropped at Oxford Crown Court
Philip Somarakis of the Motoring Offences team acted for a
client who appealed a drink driving conviction. He was involved in
an accident and blood was subsequently taken from him for analysis.
The police asked a forensic scientist to undertake a back
calculation to try and prove that at the time of driving he was
over the limit. However, the evidence from the police's forensic
scientist was far from conclusive. In fact on one view, he would
have definitely been under the limit. There is clear case law on
this point which requires a court to be entirely satisfied that a
person is over the limit, in order to convict based on
back-calculation evidence. Our client was clearly aggrieved and
appealed the decision of the Magistrates Court to convict him. In
the Crown Court, the drink driving appeal was not opposed by the
prosecuting barrister, who couldn't understand why the case was
brought in the first place.
failing to provide specimens, Southampton
B was charged by Hampshire Constabulary with one count of
failing to provide specimens of breath for analysis when requested
to do so in connection with a drink driving incident. B
consulted Barry Culshaw of the Motoring Offences Team who
investigated the status of the land on which B was arrested.
Evidence was collated and served on the Crown Prosecution Service
to illustrate that both the drink driving incident and the
subsequent arrest occured on private land and that the road in
question was, accordingly, not a road subject to the provisions of
the Road Traffic Act 1988. Case law has established that it
is not an automatic defence to a fail to provide count (as opposed
to a drink driving count) that the drink driving incident occured
on private land. However, Barry Culshaw made detailed written
representations to the Crown Prosecution Service which raised the
issue as to whether the police were acting in good faith given the
extensive signing of the private nature of the land in
question. The case was pending for trial before Southampton
Magistrates Court but following the representations the Crown
decided to discontinue the case on the basis that there was "not
enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of
conviction". Had B been convicted of the offence he would
have faced a minimum period of disqualification from driving of 12
months. The Southampton Justices also granted an order for
costs in favour of B.
failing to provide urine specimens
Barry Culshaw of our Motoring Offences team was instructed by W
who was facing proceedings at Fareham/Portsmouth Magistrates Courts
alleging that he had failed without reasonable excuse to provide
specimens of urine for analysis in connection with a drink driving
incident. A consultant urologist was commissioned to prepare a
report on the case and following service of the report the Crown
decided to discontinue the case which had been brought by Hampshire
Police.
