Danny Barnard successfully represented a client facing a charge of driving with no insurance at Walthamstow Magistrates' Court.

Our client raised the statutory defence of driving in the course of employment in the mistaken belief that one is insured. With this unique defence to what is a strict liability offence, the defendant has to prove on the balance of probabilities that he: (1) drove the motor vehicle, (2) that it wasn't registered to him, (3) that he was acting in the course of his employment, and (4) that he mistakenly believed that he was insured.

In court, the defendant put forward his evidence and documentation was provided to corroborate his account. Thanks to Danny's thorough preparation and excellent delivery of the evidence, our client was found not guilty.

Interestingly, the person who told him that he was insured could have been prosecuted for permitting him to drive uninsured. On this occasion this seems to have been overlooked by the Crown!

In another successful case for Danny, our client was a bus driver charged with an offence contrary to section 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, i.e. driving with excess alcohol. As he was a bus driver, any period of disqualification would result in immediate loss of employment.

Our client was arrested in his motor vehicle which was parked outside his home address. The Police had acted on information that he had driven after consuming Jack Daniels. He was interviewed by police and stated that he had visited a friend where he had had a drink of Jack Daniels and Coke, after which he drove to a shop where he bought two miniature bottles of Jack Daniels and two cans of Coke. He then told Police that he had driven to his home address, parked his car, and consumed the two miniature bottles of Jack Daniels. He became aware that a woman sitting in a flat across the street was watching him which made him uncomfortable, so he released the handbrake of his car and allowed the car to roll forward a few meters down the hill before reapplying the handbrake. It was shortly after this that he was arrested by police.

This case throws up a lot of interesting technical issues. Firstly, should he plead guilty or not guilty? In this case there is clear evidence of driving and this comes from the client himself. The law states that driving is defined by a person having control over a motor vehicle. This is a very broad definition and can even include someone pushing a motorcycle along the street. So by releasing his hand brake and letting the car roll downhill, technically our client was driving for the purposes of prosecution under section 5.

In this case, the defendant said that he had driven to the point where he had parked the car and then consumed additional alcohol. A further issue arises as to whether, during the journey from when he consumed the Jack Daniels and Coke at his friend's house to the point where he parked his car, he was driving with excess alcohol. In order to determine this issue, an expert had to be instructed who gave evidence as to whether the quantity of alcohol that the client said he had consumed would have put him over the limit at that point. In the expert's opinion, given the time that he had consumed this drink and the time that he was stopped by Police, he would have no alcohol in his blood stream.

The next issue to consider is whether he should plead guilty regarding the distance he drove with his handbrake off. At the police station he provided a sample of breath which showed that he did have excess alcohol in his bloodstream. In our opinion, although he was just letting the car roll down the hill, he was still driving, and therefore was advised to plead guilty in relation to this part of his journey.

Having pleaded guilty to driving with excess alcohol he faced a minimum disqualification of twelve months. In these circumstances the law provides a mechanism for reducing disqualification or giving the bench the discretion of whether to disqualify at all. The burden therefore falls onto the defendant to show, on the balance of probabilities, that there are special reasons why he should not be disqualified. In this case the special reason advanced on behalf of the defendant was that he had driven only a very small distance – commonly called 'shortness of distance driven'. The defendant had stated that he let the car roll down the hill for a very short distance and that could amount to a special reason not to disqualify.

There is a great deal of case law in this area and the Bench had to be advised on the correct approach. They adopted the approach, and once the facts of the case were applied to it they found that special reasons not to disqualify applied.

The Bench decided not to disqualify our client but instead to impose penalty points on his licence.

A further legal argument had to be advanced on his behalf that if he was to have more than 9 points imposed on his licence he would have 'totted' 13 points and would therefore face six months' disqualification. This would result in him and his family suffering exceptional hardship. This argument was accepted by the bench who imposed 6 penalty points, and he therefore avoided disqualification, loss of employment, and potential loss of his property.

In summary this required a great deal of expertise in this highly technical area, as it involved advice on plea, special reasons argument, exceptional hardship argument, and forensic evidence.