Breath test but no urine or blood taken

[london79]

A family member was reported by for moving a car to a safer parking place after having a few drinks and deciding to get a cab to be on the safe side (the cab was ordered prior to the police being informed so this can be proved).

The police came and were shown CCTV (by the person who reported it) of the driver, driving their car along a public road and into a public car park. The police took a breath test and arrested the driver on the spot as the test was 65mil.

The family member was not asked to give a further sample (blood or urine) at any stage and was released from the station after a few hours with a court case pending. We are adamant that the number of drinks they had over the period of time they had them would have been much closer to the limit.

I have a few things on my mind and want to help them as much as possible as hiring a solicitor could prove to be too expensive for them. Even if successful.

1, Can you get banned on a breath test alone? Or do the police need a blood or urine sample to back this up?
2, The person who reported them is also the person who told them to move the car in the first place, will this have any bearing on the case?
3, The offender has a clean record and was in full cooperation at all times, will this or anything else that may have happened on the night have any bearing on the case?
4, My advice so far has been for them to plead guilty and state that we would like all of the above to be considered when deciding a punishment, and not as an excuse for driving. Is that the right advice to give?

Any help or comment is welcome.

 

[SeanJoyceStephensons]

To answer each of your questions in turn:

1. Yes you can be convicted on the basis of a breath test alone. The Police are not required to offer a blood/urine test with a reading of 65 in breath.

2. This is an interesting question. In certain circumstances this can have a bearing on the case. We would need to discuss the matter in more detail to determine whether there is any issue which can be pursued. It does seem that the shortness of distance travelled may be an issue in any event.

3. Previous good character and full cooperation with police will serve as valuable mitigating features. The Courts will normally take such factors into account when determining the sentence.

4. In principle yes, subject to point 2 above. A person convicted of an offence of drink driving with a reading of 65 microgrammes in breath will be liable for a disqualification of 17 - 22 months and a fine. The Court will have discretion not to impose a disqualification where they are satisfied that there are special reasons for not doing so. On the basis of point 2 above, there may be a viable special reasons submission in this case.

If you or your family member would like to discuss the matter in more detail with one of our specialist lawyers, please feel free to call 0845 002 0736.


Carl Johnson
Drink Driving Solicitor
On behalf of Sean Joyce