Banned for hipflask defence

[Nipper76]

Hey guys...

I lost my license yesterday at a magistrate trial, I was using the hip flask defence for an offence that occurred 4 months ago.

I say I drank 350ml of vodka (small bottle) over a short period, approximately 5 minutes. (Highly stressed events lead up to this situation, argument with missus.)

I say that the time was approximately 1830, I had left the vehicle and the bottle was in the boot,I drank it outside of the vehicle and walked away.

I was arrested for the argument at 1850 nowhere near my car.

I was the carted away... and at some point my ex told the police I had been drink driving.

So at 1937 I was breathalysed outside custody and gave a reading of 47 drager.

I was then booked into custody and put on intoximeter and gave a reading of 61 at 2001.

Now I'm clearly going to have a hard time appealing because my case is me vs the police.

But my gripe is, had the roadside tested me, my reading would have been much different and subsequently wouldn't have been arrested for drink drIving.

I feel it's unfair to go on a reading that was taken 1 hour and 11 minutes after initial arrest as that's allowed plenty of time for alcohol to enter the blood.

I got a back calculation done and that backed what I said, but obviously that's only based on the information I've provided and they can't be sure of I was drinking earlier.
But based on what I said, the boot fitted.

That was all the defense I had.. so I'm between a rock and a hard place.

Do I have any chance of an appeal... or suck it up?

Cheers folks.
Regards
Dan

 

[AlanT73]

Did you have any independent witnesses to your vodka consumpton alongside the vehicle? I'm guessing not as you would have probably mentioned it and they would have appeared as witnesses for you in court. The basis of your appeal apears to be that you were not breath tested at the roadside. There is no legal requirement for this. An officer only has to suspect you are over the limit and the lowest of the two readings from the HO approved intoximeter is all that matters. The counter argument is that being tested 1 hr and 11 mins after arrest would give an opportunity for the alcohol level to drop and since you (apparently) have no independent witnesses to drinking the vodka by your vehicle the presumption is that this is what happened. In your post you write 'I say I drank 350ml of vodka' as opposed to 'I drank 350ml of vodka' which in itself doesn't bring a lot of credibility to your argument. I'm sure there are plenty of solicitors who would absolutely say you should appeal but then they would since they get paid win or lose. I thing the 'suck it up' option is your best bet to be honest.

 

[Nipper76]

Your correct, my wording isn't very credible sounding... unfortunately I'm not a good speaker in these situations and I my version of events wasn't seen as credible.

No independent witness to support me unfortunately, only a back calculation.