First Offence

Convicted Driver Insurance

The Beast

New Member
Greetings,

On Friday, I was arrested for drink driving, having failed the roadside test - I ended up blowing 47 at the police station, but 35 about 60 mins or so later.
It was the result of a heavy (and rather late finishing) party the night before, and foolishly, I never had breakfast.
The thing is, on the charge sheet, the description of the offence states that I was 'driving a motor vehicle along North Street', when in fact, I was sitting waiting in the queue for the car wash at the garage. This is where the officers apprehended me.
I was completely co-operative with the Police all the way, but really quite scared and nervous - I've *never* been in trouble with the law before. I don't recall being offered a blood or urine test, or is this mandatory? Should they have done it anyway? Like I said, I was nervous and not paying full attention, just rolling things around in my mind with worry.
Additionally, my wife is disabled and I'm her full-time carer - I was driving her mobility vehicle on which I'm a named driver, of course - and plus we live in a very rural location.
Is the judge likely to take this into account? I'm really worried.
I've been told to ask for the duty solicitor when I get to court on the 25th - I cannot afford to pay for one, as our only income is from my Wife's disability benefits.

Thanks in advance for any advice you can offer me.
 
I should also mention, that at no point did any of the Police officers present actually witness me driving - I was simply waiting for the car wash, although the engine was running.
So what they've written on the charge sheet is technically inaccurate. Does this make any difference?
 
For a first offence with a reading of 47 in breath the Magistrates sentencing guidelines advise the imposition of a 12-16 month disqualification and a Band C fine. You should also be offered the option of attending the drink drive rehabilitation course which will reduce the length of the disqualification by up to 25% upon completion.

I would also ask the duty solicitor to review the paperwork that is provided at Court. Typically speaking I would not expect someone's reading to drop by 12 micrograms in the space of an hour. The average hourly elimination rate is around 8 micrograms and the accepted variance is usually between 4 and 10. It may therefore be questionable as to whether the intoxilyzer was operating correctly. However if it was more than an hour between the 2 readings then this may explain the increased variance.

I'm afraid that the police are no longer required to offer blood or urine specimens unless the breathalyser is not working or you are medically unable to provide the specimens. Any disqualification would be mandatory, regardless of your personal circumstances.
 
Thank you for your reply, it's much appreciated.
I wondered about the accuracy thing.
Initially the roadside hand held breath test read 53. On the charge sheet, the arrest is listed as having taken place at 14:50.
By the time we got to the Police station, some 16 miles away, and by the time they got around to having me blow into the evidential unit, it must have been at least 45 mins, where I blew 47.
Again, according to the arrest sheet, I was released at 16:38, having blown 35 into a hand held unit 5-10 mins or so beforehand.
Is it worth pursuing the angle of the evidential breath tester being inaccurate, given the timescale of the whole thing?
 
Just spoke to a Brief on the phone, who advised that
A) The discrepancy on the charge sheet of the offence described vs. what actually happened, will simply be altered by means of a request put in to the court by the prosecution, thus altering the charge.
B) Pursuing the notion of the evidential breath tester being inaccurate will require significant forensic evidence, and will be a long, drawn out costly affair, with a slim likelihood of success. The 5-0 frequently recalibrate the machine, and would be able to prove it.

And so, it's a case of damage limitation. I'm all lubed up, and ready to bend over.

On a lighter note, one amusing aspect in all of this, is that I was dressed up as a girl when I got busted (I'm a crossdresser), and hilariously, when the filth took my photo at the station, in the picture as far as the criminal database is concerned, I have shoulder length blonde hair (I'm bald underneath), heavy dark eye makeup with long lashes, and bright red lips........honestly, you couldn't make it up. For the record, and so I'm told, I look very convincing, and very feminine - in fact, the arresting Officer asked if I preferred to be regarded as Male or Female....xD
I am *seriously* considering appearing in court, dressed up 'en femme' (but very smartly and tastefully, of course)
:rolleyes:
 
I would agree with 2 parts of the advice given to you, any issues regarding the location will in fact be simply dealt with by amending the charge. And any challenge to the reliability of the breathalyser would normally need to be supported by expert evidence, although this is not a requirement. It would indeed be a lengthy and very likely a costly process. However without having actually looked into this issue it is impossible to say that there is only a slim chance of success. If it was only an hour between the 2 tests then it would indicate that either your metabolic rate is far higher then usual (which does not appear to be the case from the first 2 readings) or that one of the machines was not working correctly. It is entirely possible that it was the handheld device rather than the evidential test, in which case there is no basis on which to put forward a defence. The difficulty is that the only way to find out is to make detailed investigations into all of the evidence.

I imagine that would certainly give the Court a shock!
 
I would agree with 2 parts of the advice given to you, any issues regarding the location will in fact be simply dealt with by amending the charge. And any challenge to the reliability of the breathalyser would normally need to be supported by expert evidence, although this is not a requirement. It would indeed be a lengthy and very likely a costly process. However without having actually looked into this issue it is impossible to say that there is only a slim chance of success. If it was only an hour between the 2 tests then it would indicate that either your metabolic rate is far higher then usual (which does not appear to be the case from the first 2 readings) or that one of the machines was not working correctly. It is entirely possible that it was the handheld device rather than the evidential test, in which case there is no basis on which to put forward a defence. The difficulty is that the only way to find out is to make detailed investigations into all of the evidence.

To be honest, from the moment it happened, I've been preparing myself for a ban, but I thought those matters were worth looking into, and the posting subsequent information I obtained here, to provide info and advice for anyone browsing the forum and reading this thread, who happen to be in a similar situation. However, once again, I appreciate you taking the time to read my comments and making your replies.

I imagine that would certainly give the Court a shock!
Hey, I look pretty good, as it happens! (the female Police Officer who actually arrested me was chatting to me about make-up and hair and stuff in the van on the way back to my car - she even let me sit in the front with her - and complimented me many times on my appearance....Heh! :D )
But the truth is, I pretty much live my life almost 24/7 as a girl now anyway (even though I don't want a sex change, or anything like that), and I do consider myself Transgender...sort of.
As such, I have now made the decision to arrive at court en femme, as it were, because it's who I am.
Naturally, I'll be immaculately and smartly presented, but will the court take a dim view of this, nonetheless? And is this/my status something I should point out to the duty Solicitor to inform the court about? I'll be furious if I receive a harsher sentence than would normally be expected, purely because of any prejudices.
After all, it's not like I'll be showing up looking like some horrific drag queen, just to piss people off and make some kind of point.....

There is one more question I have, regarding my actual driving license. I cannot find the thing *anywhere* (I suspect it's been thrown out with a load of junk mail, if my suspicions about it's last known whereabouts are correct). It was my original, paper license that I was issued in 1998.
So it's my intention to send off for a replacement tomorrow morning when I go into town.
What happens if it isn't issued and sent back to me in time, before the court hearing? And did I need to take it with me, anyway? There's no mention of this in the paperwork the
The Sweeney gave me.
 
Whilst the Court as an entity should not take these factors into consideration, it is a bench of Magistrates that will make the decision and I cannot make any assurances about any prejudices they may hold.

With regards to the licence, you should not be penalised for not having this with you on the day. I have acted for a large number of client's in a similar position and the Court normally ask them to send the licence back to the DVLA once it is received as they will retain it for the duration of your disqualification.
 
Enter code DRINKDRIVING10 during checkout for 10% off
Top