R v Z – Driving with Excess Alcohol

Special reasons found not to disqualify. The issues in this case were post-driving alcohol consumption and shortness of distance driven.

The case against the defendant was based on eyewitness evidence of him purchasing Jack Daniels and driving after drinking it. The defendant was found by police sitting in his parked car with the engine on. He failed the road side breath test and the intoximeter at the police station showed that he was positively over the legal limit for driving. In interview he made admissions to consuming alcohol at his friend's house and then driving to the shop to buy more alcohol. He stated that this additional alcohol was consumed after he had parked his car, but did admit to 'driving' as he stated that he had released the handbrake and allowed the car to roll downhill. He was charged with drink driving. This put him in an extremely precarious position as he was employed as a bus driver and any period of disqualification would lead to immediate dismissal.

Given the evidence against the client, especially his admissions, this was a very challenging case. An expert had to be instructed to show that the alcohol he had consumed prior to parking his car would not put him over the limit. In addition, research had to be undertaken to uncover relevant case law in this area.

Technically, the client was driving even though he had merely let the car roll downhill. So he had committed the offence of driving with excess alcohol. Therefore, he was advised to plead guilty. However, the law provides special reasons not to disqualify from driving in very exceptional cases. A special reason is shortness of distance driven, and evidence was given by the client regarding this issue. The Bench found that the short distance driven amounted to a special reason and the client was not disqualified.

This case highlights the variety of complex issues that can arise in driving cases and the importance of seeking legal advice before going to court.

R v D – Driving with Excess Alcohol

Special reasons found not to disqualify. The issue in this case was laced drinks.

The client had unknowingly consumed alcohol that had put her marginally over the legal limit. She gave evidence that before driving she had not consumed any alcohol in the previous 24 hours. A friend of hers gave evidence that he had put some red wine into her coca cola whilst she was away from the table. The bench found her credible and did not disqualify her from driving.

R v A – Driving with Excess Alcohol

Further to a submission of no case to answer, the charges against the defendant were dismissed.

This case went to trial. It was the prosecution case that the defendant left a pub after consuming alcohol and driven to his home address. He was followed by police and they saw him exit his motor vehicle and go into his house. They followed him to his home address and breathalysed him, he was found to be considerably over the legal limit. His case was that he had not driven his motor vehicle and had been at home all evening.

As the prosecution called police officers to give evidence it became apparent that none of them had identified the defendant as driving the car. This was a serious oversight on behalf of the prosecutor at the trial. At the close of the prosecution case, he had not been identified as the driver of the motor vehicle in question. This was spotted and an application was made that he had no case to answer. The District Judge agreed and the client kept his license.

R v L – Appeal against Disqualification Following the Totting up of 12 Penalty Points

Appeal upheld. Period of disqualification reduced from 6 to 3 months. Exceptional hardship argument accepted.

This case was heard in the Crown Court. The appellant was in the construction business and relied on his car to get to various sites nationwide. He had totted up 12 penalty points as a consequence of speeding convictions, and the magistrates had therefore disqualified him from driving for 6 months. His disqualification, however, had resulted in a downturn in profits. This case was presented with supporting documentation that showed a downturn with profit as a direct consequence of the disqualification. Appropriate case law was also cited. The reduction in the period of disqualification saved his business.

R v A – Driving without Insurance

Statutory defence raised. Case not proved. Not guilty verdict returned.

In this case the client was a new driver with no penalty points on his driving license. The consequence of a guilty finding regarding driving with no insurance was the revocation of his driving license and an increased insurance premium.

Driving with no insurance is a strict liability offence, save for the statutory defence of driving in the course of employment. To a large extent the burden of proof goes to the defendant in these cases. There are a number of criteria that have to be satisfied before it is found that the driver was in the course of his employment. Documentary evidence was relied upon and the defendant gave evidence. The case was well presented and the Bench found it not proved. This enabled the client to continue in employment and to keep his insurance premium at an acceptable level.