Earlier this week Nick represented Louise (not her real
name) who had been caught drink driving and who was about to lose her job if
she lost her driving licence. She had
originally instructed another motoring solicitor who advised her to plead not
guilty (and charged her accordingly) despite the evidence against her being
overwhelming and her having admitted both drinking and driving when interviewed
by the police.
The final straw with that firm came when their fixed fee
turned out not to be fixed at all and they tried to charge Louise an extra £800+VAT
before they would watch the CCTV from her case.
It was at that point that she contacted The London Drink Driving
Solicitor and Nick was assigned to work with her.
Louise made it clear that all she was concerned about was
keeping her job and that to do that she had to keep her driving licence. After fully reviewing the evidence, it was
obvious that Louise had no defence to the allegation, particularly in light of
her admissions she made in the police interview. But, it was also clear that the amount of
alcohol Louise had drunk could not have put her over the drink driving limit; however,
she had since heard a rumour that the punch she had drunk had been spiked with
very strong vodka.
Nick advised Louise to change her plea and fight the
drink driving ban by telling the court that there was a special reason not to
ban her.
We obtained expert evidence from Professor Johnston, a
renowned expert, who confirmed that the punch mixed with the very strong vodka
would have put Louise not only over the limit but at the exact level the police
measured in her breath. Importantly,
Professor Johnston also gave evidence from a scientific experiment that showed
volunteers were unable to tell the difference between a soft drink and a soft drink
spiked with large amounts of alcohol.
In court, Nick applied to be allowed to call the hearsay
evidence about the spiking of the punch saying that it was in the interests of
justice that the evidence be admitted.
Despite the obvious importance of the evidence, the court refused the
application.
The arresting officer gave evidence that Louise had been
swerving across the road. In
cross-examination, Nick got the officer to admit that she could not remember
the arrest beyond what was in her notes.
Despite that admission, the officer claimed to remember seeing Louise
swerve violently, something that was not in her note book. That was the key to Nick convincing the court
that the police officer’s evidence was unreliable.
Nick called Louise and her boyfriend, Dave, to give
evidence of what Louise had drunk that evening and both mentioned seeing the
extra strong vodka by the punch bowl, although because of the earlier ruling
neither were allowed to mention the rumour they had heard of the punch being
spiked.
After the evidence was complete the prosecution argued
that Louise and Dave were lying or mistaken about the amount of alcohol Louise
had drunk prior to driving. Nick argued
that they were both honest and reliable, that their evidence was backed up by
the evidence of Professor Johnston and that the police officer’s recollection
was unreliable.
The magistrates took just 15 minutes to agree that there
was a special reason not to disqualify her and instead imposed just six-penalty
points on her driving licence. Had she
gone to trial and lost, we have no doubt that Louise would have been convicted
of drink driving, lost her driving licence and with it, her job.
When you decide whether to plead guilty or not guilty it
is worth thinking about what you want to achieve. If you want to keep your driving licence at
all costs then claiming special reasons might be for you. You should never enter a plea to a criminal
charge, such as drink driving, without taking legal advice from a solicitor who
has experience and expertise in defending drink driving offences.
You can always get top quality legal advice on drink driving (and related offences) cases by calling The London Drink Driving Solicitor on 020 8242 4440
