DRINK DRIVING SOLICITORS & DRINK DRIVE DEFENCE LAWYERS

Our Drink Driving Solicitors have provided some examples of real-life scenarios where we have successfully defended our clients. 

1.  CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL AFTER YOU HAVE DRIVEN SOMEWHERE

We represented Mr A, who was charged with driving with excess alcohol.  His instructions were that he had consumed a small amount of alcohol in a public house before getting in his vehicle and driving home, where he then consumed further alcohol.  The police arrived at his house and arrested him and he later provided a sample of breath in excess of the prescribed limit.

We secured evidence from witnesses to confirm his account of what he had drunk and we secured expert evidence to prove that but for the post-driving consumption of alcohol, his reading would have been below the limit.

As a result, he was acquitted of the Drink Driving Offence and received no penalty. 

2. FACTUAL DISPUTE ABOUT THE DRIVING

Miss A was arrested on suspicion of driving with excess alcohol.  She told the police that she had only driven in order to get away from an abusive boyfriend.  This was disputed by the prosecution, but after we called evidence in support, our client was found not guilty of Drink Driving. 

3.  POLICE FAILURES IN THE STATUTORY RULES GOVERNING DRINK DRIVE PROCEDURES / FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH PROCEDURES

We represented Mr M who was charged with failing to provide a specimen of breath for a breath test.  The defence was based on two issues, first that he had a medical condition which amounted to a reasonable excuse, but secondly that the officer in the case had following the incorrect procedure at the Police Station.

Following cross-examination of all police officers and, in particular, the officer who had conducted the procedure, the court discarded the evidence of the Intoxilyser print-out on the basis that they could not be sure the correct procedure had been followed.

The evidence of the officers in relation to the procedure was inconsistent. 

We represented Mr M, who was charged with driving with excess alcohol.  It was contended that following the provision of a sample of blood for a laboratory test, the sample handed to him was not labelled, leaving room for doubt as to whether or not he had in fact been provided with the correct sample for testing and whether therefore the procedure had been correctly followed.

At the trial, a preliminary issue arose when the health professional, who took the sample, failed to appear to give evidence and an application by the prosecution for an adjournment was refused and the case was dismissed with the charge of Drink Driving being dropped.

4.  UNRELIABILITY OF ANALYSIS

In a number of cases before 2015, we represented clients who had provided a sample of breath which provided a reading of between 40 – 50.  As the law stood at that stage, they were entitled to have the opportunity of providing a sample of blood. 

In all those cases, the analysis of the blood was just in excess of the permitted limit, but the analysis of the defendants’ samples was proved to be just below the permitted limit.

In particular, we represented Mr H at a trial where the experts for both sides were called.  The prosecution contended that their analysis was reliable, but that of the defendant’s expert was not reliable.  A District Judge was persuaded that in a case where two experts disagreed over some fine issues, it was not clear that the court could be sure which method it ought to prefer and the defendant was found not guilty of Drink Driving.

Although the law has changed and the police are no longer obliged to offer a defendant the opportunity of providing a blood or urine sample in a case of a breath reading between 40 – 50, there are still occasions when it will be necessary for the police to take a blood or urine sample and in those cases where the reading is just above the prescribed limit, it may be possible to challenge that reading if appropriate steps are taken at a very early stage.