On Bail

[BONNIE001]

i was arrested at home after a tip off, I had been out for a works do and admited drinking 1 pint lager 1 bottle of lager and 1 glass of wine over 4 hour period i had been at home for 1 hour when police arrived i blew 56 at home and 50 at station where blood was then taken, i had 2 x 275 ml glasses of wine at home prior to police visit, the officer took the glass and empty bottle. i have been bailed for 6 weeks. i was told they would back calculate and assess blood. no previous convictions. Please advise my chances.

 

[price1367]

The police will have bailed you to see what the result of your blood sample is. You blew 50, so the breath sample is not now used.
the claim that you have been drinking is a defence for you to put forward, not for the police to disprove. In law, what is in your system when you are breath tested IS what was in your system when you were driving. You then have to show that you have been drinking AND that the amount that you drank made the difference to you being over the legal limit. So you are guilty unless you prove your innocence, which without witnesses to your drinking will be very difficult to satisfy the court that what you say is credible in law.
with a reading of 50, you would need to have done the blood test quite a while afterwards for the reading to have gone down enough to be under the.limit, certainly over an hour, maybe nearer 2 hours. How long was it?
on the other hand, if your blood reading comes back higher than your breath reading then this could be tending to support your claim of recent drinking, where your reading was on the way up still.....

 

[BONNIE001]

Unfortunately it was about 10 mins after, I will just have to return and face the consequences i guess. My duty solicitor said they did not have much of a case due to the bottle being seized the 50 i blew and the amount of time i was at home, but it still fills me with dread.

 

[drinkwallah]

It's easy to be wise after the event, but as you had been home for an hour, you should have told the plebs that you had drunk a bottle of wine before they arrived, end of problem.
I always keep a half full bottle of rum just inside the front door, if the plebs bang on the door I'll great them with a half bottle of rum, the rest I've drunk before they arrived, sorted.
you can only be Breathalyzed for suspicion of drink driving, or drunk in possession, as you hadn't driven for an hour, you were nowhere near your car, and didn't have the carkeys in you pocket, I suspect that you could have refused to take the breathalyser "citation needed"

 

[price1367]

It's easy to be wise after the event, but as you had been home for an hour, you should have told the plebs that you had drunk a bottle of wine before they arrived, end of problem.
I always keep a half full bottle of rum just inside the front door, if the plebs bang on the door I'll great them with a half bottle of rum, the rest I've drunk before they arrived, sorted.
you can only be Breathalyzed for suspicion of drink driving, or drunk in possession, as you hadn't driven for an hour, you were nowhere near your car, and didn't have the carkeys in you pocket, I suspect that you could have refused to take the breathalyser "citation needed"

If the post had been read, he would see that Bonnie001 says that he did drink just over half a bottle of wine after getting home, but he is still in the mire. Why?
Because, since 1988, when the Police find you, post incident, they can breath test you, up to many hours later. The below legislation, in plain English terms says: "When the police require you to provide a breath test when you are, or have been the driver of a motor vehicle on a road or public place, the amount of alcohol in your body then is presumed to be what was in your body when you are driving. If your DEFENCE is; "I have been drinking since I drove" then it is for YOU to satisfy the court that you have been drinking since, AND that the amount you drank made the difference to you being over the legal limit. Without witnesses, that is difficult to prove, and would need a technical expert to give evidence on your behalf (Circa £800 cost) plus, if you lose, the cost of the technical expert called by the prosecution to rebut the defence you put forward.
On a personal note, I feel that this legislation is draconian and can leave people in a very difficult position. That is why I have used my expertise in the past to advise Solicitors on the merits of their "technical defence" in these circumstances, prior to them spending clients money on an expert for court.

This is what the law says in legal language:
[h=4]Use of specimens in proceedings for an offence under section 4 or 5 of the Road Traffic Act.[/h]

(1)​

This section and section 16 of this Act apply in respect of proceedings for an offence under [F1section 3A, 4 or 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (driving offences connected with drink or drugs)]; and expressions used in this section and section 16 of this Act have the same meaning as in [F2sections 3A to 10] of that Act.

(2)​

Evidence of the proportion of alcohol or any drug in a specimen of breath, blood or urine provided by [F3or taken from]the accused shall, in all cases [F4(including cases where the specimen was not provided [F5or taken]in connection with the alleged offence)], be taken into account and, subject to subsection (3) below, it shall be assumed that the proportion of alcohol in the accused’s breath, blood or urine at the time of the alleged offence was not less than in the specimen.

[F6(3)​

That assumption shall not be made if the accused proves—

(a)​

that he consumed alcohol before he provided the specimen [F7or had it taken from him] and—

(i)​

in relation to an offence under section 3A, after the time of the alleged offence, and

(ii)​

otherwise, after he had ceased to drive, attempt to drive or be in charge of a vehicle on a road or other public place, and

(b)​

that had he not done so the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine would not have exceeded the prescribed limit and, if it is alleged that he was unfit to drive through drink, would not have been such as to impair his ability to drive properly.]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/53/section/15

As to the "Citation needed" , All the police have to show, as above, is that you are, or have been, the driver of a motor vehicle on a road and, if they suspect alcohol in your body (not even that after an accident) they can require you to provide a breath test. If you refuse, then you lose your possible defence that you have been drinking because the failing to supply offence is complete. It is immaterial if you have been drinking afterwards because you are not being charged with being "over the limit", but with "refusing a breath test."

This is what the law says in legal language:





[h=4]Power to administer preliminary tests[/h]

(1)​

If any of subsections (2) to (5) applies a constable may require a person to co-operate with any one or more preliminary tests administered to the person by that constable or another constable.

(2)​

This subsection applies if a constable reasonably suspects that the person—

(a)​

is driving, is attempting to drive or is in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, and

(b)​

has alcohol or a drug in his body or is under the influence of a drug.

(3)​

This subsection applies if a constable reasonably suspects that the person—

(a)​

has been driving, attempting to drive or in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place while having alcohol or a drug in his body or while unfit to drive because of a drug, and

(b)​

still has alcohol or a drug in his body or is still under the influence of a drug.

(4)​

This subsection applies if a constable reasonably suspects that the person—

(a)​

is or has been driving, attempting to drive or in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, and

(b)​

has committed a traffic offence while the vehicle was in motion.

(5)​

This subsection applies if—

(a)​

an accident occurs owing to the presence of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, and

(b)​

a constable reasonably believes that the person was driving, attempting to drive or in charge of the vehicle at the time of the accident.

(6)​

A person commits an offence if without reasonable excuse he fails to co-operate with a preliminary test in pursuance of a requirement imposedunder this section.







http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52

It is therefore clear that it is very bad advice to say "just keep a bottle of rum at home as I do and you will be 'sorted'." Plus of course, that the Police might stop you BEFORE you get home. Where is your "defence" then....?

 

[ukboxer]

It's easy to be wise after the event, but as you had been home for an hour, you should have told the plebs that you had drunk a bottle of wine before they arrived, end of problem.

Should have told, as opposed to what actually happened is advising someone to tell the Police lies which is perverting the course of justice. If caught out this charge results in a custodial sentence so not good advice at all.

I always keep a half full bottle of rum just inside the front door, if the plebs bang on the door I'll great them with a half bottle of rum, the rest I've drunk before they arrived, sorted.

I think you will find that the vast majority of people here are not looking for a 'way out' to continue to drink drive. As Price1367 has stated it is by no means a 'way out' either. You are once again advising people to lie to the Police!

If you feel the need to conceal a bottle of rum "just in case" you clearly have problems with alcohol, whilst not judging you, you need to be aware that when you combine alcohol with driving your problem becomes everyone elses problem.

Perhaps Santa should have got you an Oyster card for Christmas.

 

[BONNIE001]

Just returned from bail, now been charged as blood came back 123mgs as Price1367 has mentioned earlier, this is surely a good
sign to prove rising level from 50 in breath? would like your thoughts Price?
Court date 4th March where i shall plead not guilty and have contacted an expert to provide figures, do you also feel i could
represent myself armed with all the facts? thanks.

 

[price1367]

Unfortunately it is not as good as you think.
A reading of 50 on the breath test machine is about 50% over the limit of 35.
A reading of 123 in Blood is also about 50% over the limit of 80 in blood.
you had 2 X 275ml glasses of wine, which, at 12% abv would be about 6.5 units, which would increase your reading by 45 in breath or 104 in blood.
If you blew 56 at home, you would have still been absorbing some of the wine, so your reading would have been expected to go up as you continued to absorb the wine, but it seems that it didn't.
This is definitely NOT something that you can defend yourself. It will cost in the region of £600 to £800 to engage a technical expert and get him to give evidence at court. This will prompt the prosecution to engage their own technical expert at similar cost. That expert will need to be cross examined, and whilst you might be comfortable asking some questions in court, I doubt that you will have the technical ability to challenge the complex evidence that their expert gives. So you WOULD need a solicitor proficient in this type of defence. This is going to be costly.
BUT, after all this has been said, you still have to satisfy the court that you DID consume the 2 glasses of wine, and in the absence of any evidence from witnesses to support what you say, I fear you will fail at that simple hurdle.
if you lose, you will also have to pay the prosecution costs, which will include their technical experts fees, so together with you expert and solicitor fees, are you prepared to spend £4,000 to £5,000 on what is, at best, a slim chance that you will succeed?

 

[BONNIE001]

On that basis, the police do not have any witnesses to my drinking prior to arrest as i have none to my drinking post driving this is fair?

furthermore i was understanding a expert document can be produced at court to prove my argument using given information not the actual expert themselves?

If the onus is on myself to PROVE the allegations false by technical means which the document will do, why will it need to be challenged?

Surely if an expert claims correct stance by myself then disproving them with another expert would become farcical and could be never ending?

your earlier response was " the claim that you have been drinking is a defence for you to put forward, not for the police to disprove" this seems at odds
with them wanting to challenge as on that basis i have lost before i have started.

excuse any niavety i do not do this daily.

 

[price1367]

You can get an experts report, but it can only be presented to the court if the prosecution agree its contents. If they disagree, then you have to produce the witness in court to give evidence.
remember, the expert will only give evidence based on what you have told him, and the prosecution will say that therefore the 'expert' evidence is biased and therefore not correct. Likewise, you might feel that the prosecution expert is also biased, but the law is on the prosecution side in that e law says there. Is a presumption that what is in your system when tested IS what was in your system when you were driving.
What you need is evidence that you did drink after you got home. The reading that you produced in blood, compared to the reading you gave at home and at the police station do not support that. By all means get an experts report, it will cost in the region of £300, which may assist you with deciding if you should plead guilty, but think carefully before going down the route of calling the expert as a witness, because of the cost I have already outlined. If your expert supports what you claim, you could try serving the expert evidence on the prosecution and ask that they discontinue the case, but if they they refer the case to another expert for their opinion, and they do not agree, you will be saddled with more prosecution costs if found guilty.
In the end, experts are not always right. That is why they present an opinion, based on the information that they have been supplied. The magistrates would have to listen to the expert evidence from each side, then make their minds up, on the balance of probabilities, which version of events points them to the correct verdict.
let me give you an example:
The police charge you with an offence of assault. You go and talk to a solicitor, give him your version of events and he the writes a letter to the Police saying that in his (expert) opinion, you are not guilty. CPS would not just accept this and discontinue the case, as in their (also expert) opinion, there is enough evidence to punt the case before the court. You would not then expect to produce the solicitors letter to the court and the magistrates to throw the case out...... Witnesses would have to be produced from each side to help the magistrates decide which side is correct.

 

[BONNIE001]

On this basis if the same information is provided to the expert and the police surely they would not need to challenge the evidence?

also working on the basis if i represented myself and pleaded not guilty on the first hearing are the CPS obliged to give me all
the statements etc so i can make a thorough case ? And is there still a chance they could drop the charge prior to the main hearing if the experts advice
does concurr with the events?

 

[price1367]

I realise this is a difficult concept, because you are trying to apply common sense, but the law does not operate on common sense. The experts are NOT going to agree. You will tell your expert that you DID have 2 glasses of wine after you got home. He will prepare a report presuming that to be true. The prosecution expert is going to be told that there is no evidence that you have consumed alcohol after driving. What the prosecution have is that you had glasses and an empty bottle. How full was it when you got home? It could have been empty anyway, you could have tipped a bit of wine into the glass, swilled it round then emptied it away.....
On the outside chance that they did agree on, hypothetically, what your reading would have been IF you did have 2 glasses of 275ml wine after getting home, the case would still go ahead for the court to decide IF you did in fact have those drinks. With no witnesses they are unlikely to agree that you did. You then get saddled with prosecution costs, including their expert report on top of your own expert report (£600 or so) and, as I said before, you really would need a solicitor do defend a case like this.
If you are still not happy, then get an independent report from an expert ASAP that will help you decide if you should take it further. All I can say is that from my informed (but not expert witness) viewpoint, your reading of 56 at home, followed by 50 at the police station then 123 in blood a few minutes later (equivalent to 52 in breath) is not consistent with you having consumed 6.5 units of alcohol in the hour after you got home. That is equivalent to a blood reading of 104, providing it had all absorbed into your system and that just does not appear in your blood reading compared to your initial fail.
There can be small variables, and the questionnaire you complete for the expert report will ask your height, weight, when you last ate anything etc that can have small influences on the outcome. Even allowing for that I fear that you will fail.
Come back for more advice when you have your experts opinion. If you are going to then submit this as your defence you will need to do that at least 7 days before the court case to give the defence time to refute it, so time is up against you.
if you plead not guilty, then the prosecution will serve on you the evidence that they intend to rely on. It will probably not, however, include an experts opinion on you consuming alcohol at home, as they would only seek that opinion once you submit your experts report, it is not evidence that they routinely gather, or everyone would be stung with £300 costs for the report, even in guilty pleas initially.
In effect, you agree with all the prosecution case, but YOU have to go that extra mile to add the evidence of drinking at home AND that the amount you drank made the difference to you being over the limit. Where is that evidence? It does not relly come from the expert report, that might say it COULD be right, IF it is true....
Please don't think I am just trying to be awkward, I am simply being honest with you as to the uphill task that you face, and the issues that will be thrown at you in court. Better to see them now, than be shocked when they arise later.

 

[BONNIE001]

Really appreciate your patience Price.

just a couple of other loose ends i can't get my head around -

"You blew 50, so the breath sample is not now used."

if this is the case surely all CPS are allowed to concentrate on is the 123mgs of blood as the breath tests are nullified?
therefore the information given to the expert is :-

A) what i drank including amount and when.
B) age, gender, height weight.
C) what i ate - up to 6 hours prior
D) timescales
E) blood test figure i.e. 123mgs

provided as i stated earlier if the information given to the expert is the same as that given to the police and it came
back with highly probable the figures add up i have proven the question.

If the prosecutions main argument will be expert against expert does 7 days prior to court hearing mean
the main court hearing or when i plead "not guilty" on my first visit?

if when I receive my advanced information file from CPS there are no statements from individuals regarding
seeing me driving surely there is no case to answe anyway really, because apart from admitting to have a drink at
the party there is no proof from the prosecution?

My understanding is the only evidence they have now is the blood test?

Please excuse my ignorance but as you stsate i am purely looking at this as a layman.

 

[price1367]

I don't mind you asking at all, it has taken me years to absorb all this information, and I don't pretend that is fair, or logical, but you have to work with the law as it accepted in the courts.
The reading of 50 is not now being used, you are right, but only in the sense that you are not being prosecuted for it, because you have given a blood sample that has replaced it. That does not mean that the prosecution cannot REFER to it, as evidence helping the magistrates coMe to a conclusion as to wh at your reading was when you were driving. It is also relevant to the expert witnesses, because they will use this to tract the timeline that you need to satisfy the magistrates about. Similarly, the reading of 56 on the hand held breath test you were first given at home is not something that you can be prosecuted for, but it would be introduced to show the trend in your readings, which were, apparently, not escalating as you would expect from someone consuming 6.5 units in the previous hour.
I said I am not an expert witness, but I can say that I have been consulted by solicitors on several occasions where they have been running the "not likely to drive whilst still over the legal limit" argument, I have offered an informed opinion and on the times where they have tested this subsequently with an expert, they have concurred with what I have said. I have also had 14 years direct Custody experience operating the breath test machines in a police station and have seen on numerous occasions where a drink drivers reading falls in line with what I have predicted for them to be released.
The 7 day bit means that you would have to submit your experts evidence 7 days prior to the hearing. At the hearing, the prosecution would then say that they now need time to examine and or refute this evidence by seeking their own expert evidence. I was trying to say that you will not get an expert report from the other side when you submit your evidence, because it will not have been sought until you raise it as a defence.
in turn, at least 7 days before the case is heard again, th e prosecution would have to serve their experts report as evidence to you. You then have to say if you accept it, (which you would do if it supported you!) or dispute it. Both you, and the prosecution have the choice of refusing to accept the others expert report, in which case the report in dispute is not admissible, and it means that the only way the evidence is admitted to court is by the respective expert appearing in person.
Effectively it is either neither expert appearing, because they concur (which I have said is doubtful) and the trial is about DID you in fact drink after getting home which made the difference to you being over the legal limit........ Or that the experts disagree, in which case they both have to attend because an expert opinion given in court, without being refuted by another expert, is almost certain to be believed.
that is why I said to consider you,r costs. About £300 to satisfy yourself, but double that if you submit it to the prosecution as a defence, because they will do the same and you will pay if found guilty, and if you do go to trial, solicitors fees of £3,000 plus.
As to the police file, yes you will get to see the evidence they will rely on if you plead not guilty. They will serve the statements and MGDDA / B forms that were completed, along with the analysts report for the blood.
You don't appear to have denied here that you drove home. In the file will be , I would imagine, you admitting to the officers that you had driven when they went to your house, plus possibly a statement from the person who reported you. If this was done in confidence, the police will no doubt just rely on your own admission. The only way you find out what the police evidence is, is when you either plead guilty, and it is read out to the court, or you plead not guilty and the papers are served on you.
Finally, you say the only evidence they have is the blood sample.... as I have shown, it is the only evidence they need (other than showing that you had driven a motor vehicle on a road) BUT, there is other evidence that CAN, and will be, introduced to re enforce their case when you try to introduce doubt on the accuracy of that reading.

 

[BONNIE001]

THANKS.

To clarify, the experts report must be presented on the second visit the first being the "Guilty" "Not Guilty" stage?

secondly can there be 2 reports that are mutually exclusive i.e.

a) the amount drank at the party as submitted to the police?

b) the amount drank at home prior to arrest?

is there also any likelihood that the experts report will be refuted and the police will not bother to raise an expert report
because obviously I would just refute there report too?

Furthermore you state "BUT, there is other evidence that CAN, and will be, introduced to re enforce their case when you try to introduce doubt on the accuracy of that reading."

what sort of thing?

Finally if i withdrew my admission and asked for my interview not to be taken into account what proof have they then?

 

[price1367]

The expert that you instruct will ask you what you say you drank that night, both at the party and at home. Also what you had eaten in the previous 6 hours or so. He will want to know the size of the drinks and their alcohol by volume. This, coupled with your height and weight will enable him to estimate how much alcohol was in your system at the time you were driving and the likely part that your wine at home played in your eventual reading of 123 in blood.
if you are going to plead not guilty and intent to produce expert evidence, then you need to tell the court this when you appear and enter your plea. This will then put the prosecution on notice that you indeed to do this, but it will probably then trigger them to seek their own expert opinion. This is why you should get the report done NOW, so that if it doesn't help your case, you can simple stand the cost of just this, and plead guilty on your first appearance.... No solicitor fees and no costs for the prosecution expert if you lose.
The other evidence that I said the prosecution CAN introduce is the trail of readings that I listed, I.e. your 56 at home and the 50 at the police station. This is done as one timeline for the night, not as 2 separate reports. It is not practicable to consider what happened in the one hour at home, without considering what happened in the few hours before.
if you admitted to the police that you were driving, either when they came to your home, or in a subsequent interview, you cannot retract that. If you plead not guilty and say you dispute the interview, then they will, have the interview transcribed (possible further costs if you lose) and the magistrates will have to decide if it is admissible as evidence. Unless the interview was conducted in an improper way, it will be admissible. The only thing you can do is give evidence yourself, and say that, in effect, the police are lying because you didn't say that, if it was a verbal admission not on tape, .... (A dangerous course to go down) or that you were perhaps, so confused that you didn't realise what you were saying. Do you fancy being in the witness box being cross examined about that by a solicitor?
The Police will NOT drop the case, no matter what your expert says, because at best, he could only say IF .... and only IF...... what you say is true, then it COULD have made the difference to whether you were over the legal limit. The onus is then on you to satisfy the court that you DID drink the 2 glasses of wine. That is where you need witnesses to your drinking, or you will probably fail. You need to show both elements of the defence needed.: I had some alcohol after getting home, AND it made the difference to being over the limit. The expert can only supply one of those.

 

[BONNIE001]

Once again thank you.

To reiterate i find it hard to understand the point of getting an experts report due to the fact it will be refuted anyway and therefore not admissable?

Furthermore if something is not admissable can it not be mentioned in court, e.g "i had a report in my favour but it was not allowed" ?

Also on the night of the arrest when i was awoken and breathalysed in my kitchen, the officer never asked me if i had been drinking at home on arrival,
He just asked "if I had been driving that evening"? - is that an error on his behalf?

Finally, the law states :-
[h=3]Back Calculations - public interest[/h] When considering a request from the police that back calculations be made, or reviewing a case based upon such evidence, (see also back calculations, above in this section) you should consider whether such a prosecution would be in the public interest. Factors to consider in the context of such a case in favour of prosecution might include:

• where a considerable lapse of time occurred between the incident of driving and the driver's arrest because of the driver's own culpable actions by, for example, absconding from the scene of an accident;
• where there are clear grounds for believing the driver to be a danger to other road users, such as the possession of previous drink/drive convictions;
• where there are other aggravating features, such as the fact that the driver was disqualified from driving or serious injury was caused to another person.

I have no previous convictions criminal or driving, there was no accident, personal injury or incident involving anyone else or object.
Is this not a case of NOT in the public interest?

Do you feel if a case was presented well enough, there may still be an outside chance of charges being dropped prior to hearing?

 

[price1367]

The police do not have to ask if you have been drinking since you got home, because their job is prosecution, you have the job of putting together a defence, and drinking afterwards is part do that.
I thought that drinking at home had come up, because you said they took possession of glasses and an empty bottle?
you cannot mention a reported not produce it. You either submit the report as part of your defence, and be prepared for it to be challenged, or you cannot mention it. There is no half way on this.
you quoted "the law" on back calculations. There are 2 problems with this. Firstly, it relates to just that, back calculations. You are not being prosecuted on a back calculation. You are being prosecuted for driving over the legal limit, with a presumption in law that your reading when you gave the sample WAS what was in your system. A back calculation is where you give a sample which is below the legal limit and the laboratory is asked to calculate what it WOULD have been at the time you were driving. There is a subtle, but clear difference.
Secondly, the wording you have quoted is familiar to me. I am not at work with access to my legal books, but correct me if I am wrong but are you not quoting from the CPS guidance manual for standards to consider when proceeding with a case? In which case it is just that, guidance and NOT law.
the only way that charges might be dropped is if you had a clear and unequivocal report from a recognised expert on the effect of the alcohol you consumed at home, together with witness statements from people who saw you drinking at home and how much you drank. Even then they might decide to see what the court viewed of the evidence. If you had this evidence, together with a well crafted letter from a solicitor who knows their drink drive law, you might get somewhere.
Again, you come back to the starting point being an experts report, ASAP. Your expert does not become inadmissible just because another expert disagrees, they are both admissible, that magistrates have to decide, on balance, which one they believe is more credible. I have already said, though, that if hey found your expert more credible, it does not satisfy the part about satisfying the court that you actually DID drink 2 glasses of wine after getting home.....

 

[BONNIE001]

Thanks.

You mentioned earlier you specialized in technical defences, is there any light you can shed on my situation that could give me an
advantage at all? i.r. any defences i can check please?

Just feel the whole thing so unjust as all i have told you is true and can't believe the police can drag you out of bed on the say so of
another person with no prior evidence.

What if someone had a grudge against an innocent person, knew they had been driving that day and knew they would be
at home drinking alone then decide to call the police and claim they were drinkng and driving?

 

[price1367]

Don't put my status that high, I don't specialise in technical defences, only a solicitor can do that, but I have had a lot of experience in this type of case.
i think I have told you all I can as to where the law stands, and what evidence that you would require.
You ask about someone engineering this situation, in this case, you had been drinking before you drove home, the debate is, were you over the limit at that time. The issue for you is that the drinking after you get home, even if true, gets lumped in with the pre driving drinking as well, any you have to defend that. Pre 1988, a person only had to greet an officer at his door, take a mouthful of beer from a can and he could not be prosecuted, no matter how drunk he was when he drove home. That is what brought about a change in the law to put the responsibility on the driver to satisfy the court that they had been drinking AND it put them over the limit after they got home. In effect it becomes 'guilty unless you prove your innocence'. Unfair? In many cases yes, but I cannot alter the law, I just deal with it as it is.
if someone was engineering the situation, they would also have to realise that the person was going to go home and continue drinking, and know that there were going to be no witnesses at home. Presumably the person who reported you might have thought that you would have been stopped on the way home, where there would have been a definitive answer as to what your reading was.
The court will not deal with how nice a person you are, how unfair it might seem, or indeed what they think would be the best thing to do. What they will deal with is hard evidence, and then decide if the prosecution have proved their case beyond reasonable doubt. If they have, you will be convicted. I have tried to take you through the steps to see if you should do 'damage limitation' so that if you are going to be found guilty, you do it in the most effect I've way, also if you want to explore the not guilty route, that you test the water before throwing everything (including the contents of your bank account) into it.