Thomas Hayes had denied driving his Porsche while drunk when it flipped onto its roof at Burnside, claiming it was driven by his friend, Derek Henderson.

However, the Magistrates found him guilty of driving his car while nearly 4 times over the legal limit, after a 5 hour trial at South Lakeland Magistrates Court on Tuesday, 8^th November 2011.  He was also found guilty of driving without due care and attention at South Lakeland Magistrates Court.  The offence of driving without due care and attention attracts between 7-9 penalty points, or a period of disqualification.

The police arrested Mr Hayes on suspicion of drink driving.  He was later found to have 133ųg alcohol in 100ml of breath, the legal limit being 35ųg.  This reading would attract a period of disqualification of between 29-36 months, and potentially a custodial sentence.

The Magistrates did not accept Mr Hayes’ evidence that he was a passenger.  The prosecutor said the defendant could now face charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice, and this does attract a custodial sentence.

Carl Millar states that any reading in breath of 120ųg or over could potentially attract a custodial sentence, which can usually only be avoided by strong mitigating circumstances.

If you find yourself charged with an offence of drink driving irrespective of the level of the reading, contact Cunninghams Solicitors for professional advice and representation at Court, whether you intend to plead guilty or not guilty to the offence.

The 20 year old footballer pleaded guilty after he was pulled over on 11^th September and arrested.

Mr Ranger was given credit for his early guilty plea and fined in accordance with his salary.

If a defendant does plead guilty or is found guilty after trial, then the minimum period of disqualification that the Magistrates must endorse is 12 months, subject to a 25% reduction if the defendant successfully completes the drink drivers’ rehabilitation course.

The only way to avoid disqualification for drink driving is if the prosecution cannot prove the case against the defendant beyond any reasonable doubt.

Here at Cunninghams Solicitors, we are experts in finding technical defences which could prevent a disqualification for drink driving.

They found from a freedom of information request that 55,539 people were convicted for drink driving in 2010.  Usually, anyone caught for an offence of driving with excess alcohol, or driving under the influence of alcohol can typically expect a Court appearance followed by a minimum period of disqualification of 12 months.

Yet, of those caught drink driving last year, 1,480 were not disqualified from driving.  A similar number were cautioned or convicted of more than one drink driving offence within the same year, which the insurer says suggests those who weren’t banned the first time then go on to re-offend.

A survey completed by the insurer found that, despite widespread publicity about the dangers of drink driving, two thirds of those surveyed said they know someone who drives after drinking, and a quarter say they know people who get behind the wheel even if they are above the legal limit.

The worst area for drink driving and over the limit was the West Midlands, where 36% said they knew of people who drive with enough alcohol in their system to exceed the legal limit.

The research by the insurer says that the city of London and Suffolk are the two regions where drink drivers are most likely to escape disqualification, while Cumbria and Warwickshire are the most likely to ban drink drivers.

Our Mr Millar is of the view that it is a bit of an urban myth to suggest that you may have more prospects of success in one area of the country than another.  The simple fact is that a technical defence for drink driving is available anywhere in the country and it is up to the prosecution to prove the case against you beyond any reasonable doubt.

If you do want representation to avoid a ban for drink driving, then you should consult Cunninghams Solicitors on 0161 835 9852 whom will explore every possibility with you.

The bill for the rehabilitation scheme taken by those convicted of drink driving will be picked up by the offenders from now on, according to the Government proposals published on Wednesday, 9^th November 2011.  The Driving Standards Agency published the proposals to modernise the drink drive rehabilitation scheme that includes improving the standard of courses and who pays for them.

Currently, anybody who is convicted of any drink driving related matters will usually be offered the drink drivers’ rehabilitation course and, if successfully completed, this will result in a 25% reduction from any disqualification imposed.  From a defendants’ point of view, it is certainly beneficial if he/she attends a drink drivers’ rehabilitation course as this will substantially reduce any disqualification period.  The fees for the course are modest as they are mainly met by the taxpayer at present.

The cost of administering the scheme is usually met by the general taxpayer as stated above, and the consultation process that offenders should pick up the bill through fees they pay to cover the cost of the training has been proposed.  The overall aim of the drink drivers’ rehabilitation course is to reduce the number of re-offenders by educating them on the potential consequences of their behaviour.

The consequence of the proposals will mean that anybody convicted of a drink driving related offence would have to pay an increased fee if he/she is offered the drink drivers’ rehabilitation course, to gain the 25% reduction in the disqualification imposed by the Magistrates.

Regrettably, Miss H had a very high breath reading, which was in excess of 120ųg in 100ml of breath.  The starting point for any reading at this level would automatically attract a custodial sentence as a starting point.  To compound matters, Miss H had driven into 5 stationary vehicles without stopping and caused in excess of £15,000 worth of damage.  Obviously, with such a high breath reading and an aggravating feature of failing to stop after driving into a number of vehicles, there was a very real possibility that a custodial sentence would be imposed and indeed, this was indicated by the Magistrates at the first hearing and Miss H was ordered to see the Probation Service for the preparation of a pre-sentence report.

In cases such as these, if the Magistrates are considering sentencing a defendant to a period in custody, the preparation of a pre-sentence report is required by the Probation Service who will meet with the defendant and make recommendations to the Magistrates.

At the sentence hearing, Carl presented powerful mitigation on Miss H’s behalf to try and persuade the Magistrates not to impose an immediate prison sentence and to consider instead imposing a suspended sentence.  The report from the Probation Service also agreed with Carl’s view that a prison sentence would have a negative impact due to Miss H’s vulnerability and she would be at risk of exploitation by other inmates.  The devastating impact a custodial sentence would have on her family was also a factor as Miss H is a single mother with highly dependent children.

The Magistrates were persuaded by Carl’s representations and decided to suspend the custodial sentence.  Obviously, Miss H was delighted with the outcome as she genuinely feared that she would be going to prison.

Carl advanced a reasonable excuse of having a panic attack at the police station for Miss T not being able to provide a specimen of breath for analysis.  Carl instructed a psychiatric expert known to him, to prepare a report in relation to the possibility of this defence.

As a matter of law, once a reasonable excuse is advanced in the circumstances, it is for the prosecution to disprove or negate this beyond any reasonable doubt.  At the trial, the prosecution made an application to vacate the trial date in order for them to instruct their own expert, but Carl opposed this application and made strong representations that the Crown had had plenty of time in which to instruct an expert and indeed, the expert that Carl instructed was independent in any event.  Carl’s skilful advocacy ensured that his opposition to vacate the trial date was successful, and he also pointed out that the Crown had only provided vital evidence the day before the trial, despite a number of requests from Cunninghams, proving further that the Crown had not prepared their case properly.  As a result of the opposition to vacate the trial, the Crown were unable to disprove the reasonable excuse advanced and therefore offered no evidence and the case therefore did not proceed and the prosecution withdrew the case against Miss T.

Obviously, Miss T was delighted with the outcome and a defendants’ costs order was granted.  This means that Miss T is entitled to apply for a reimbursement of her fees incurred for Cunninghams Solicitors to represent her.

A defendant should always be acquitted whereby a reasonable excuse has not been negated by the prosecution.  This could be physical in the context of, for example a decreased lung capacity.  More usually, the reasonable excuse will be mental in the context of an anxiety or a panic attack and it is strongly recommended that this is supported by a medical experts’ opinion, although this is not always necessary.

We represent clients on a nationwide basis covering the whole country, including Manchester, Birmingham and London, in any drink driving related case – be it driving with excess alcohol (drink driving), failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis and driving whilst unfit through drink or drugs.

Mr Costello was a third time drink driver, whom had been observed by police in an unmarked vehicle.  Mr Costello had also thrown a small packet of cannabis over a garden wall, which was found by the authorities.

Unfortunately for Mr Costello, more cannabis was found on his person and he was found to be driving above the legal limit, at 109ųg in 100ml of breath.  The legal limit is 35ųg.

Mr Costello had pleaded guilty to the offences of dangerous driving, driving with excess alcohol and possession of cannabis.

A prison sentence was imposed for a period of 11 months, and he was disqualified from driving for a period of 2 years, with a condition that he must take an extended re-test as a result of being disqualified for dangerous driving.

Carl Millar comments that a reading at 109ųg in 100ml of breath would not normally necessarily attract a prison sentence.  A reading of 109ųg of alcohol would normally attract a disqualification of between 23-28 months if that offence was committed in isolation.  Unfortunately for Mr Costello, he had also committed other offences at the time whilst driving, namely dangerous driving and possessing cannabis.  Furthermore, he had a history of relevant previous convictions, including taking cars, two previous drink driving convictions, driving whilst disqualified and having no insurance or licence.  He also had other offences including failing to stop at the scene of an accident, failing to report an accident and causing a vehicle to be left in a dangerous position.

In those circumstances, it was hardly surprising that Mr Costello received a prison sentence.

Mr F had provided two specimens of breath and, due to the level of reading, was supposed to be given the statutory option by the police, so that he could exercise his right to have the specimens of breath replaced with a sample of blood.  However, the clients’ instructions were that he felt compelled to provide a sample of blood, as opposed to be given the statutory option.

Mr F’s defence was presented to the Court.  The prosecution did not have any evidence from the doctor that Mr F had consented to provide a sample of blood.  In such circumstances, our Mr Millar was able to persuade the prosecutor to discontinue the case against Mr F due to a lack of evidence.  Obviously, Mr F was delighted with the outcome and was awarded a defence costs order, which will result in him receiving reimbursement of his fees.

Unfortunately, this was Mr R’s second drink driving conviction.  His reading was at 89ųg in 100ml of breath.  The Magistrates Court Guidelines suggest a period of disqualification of between 17-22 months for a first time offender where the reading is between 60-89ųg.  Obviously, Mr R was very concerned that he may receive a lengthy period of disqualification.  The minimum period of disqualification for a second drink driving conviction within a 10 year period is 3 years.  Mr R had grave concerns as he was fully aware that his reading in breath for his second drink driving conviction was very high.  Powerful mitigation was presented by Carl on Mr R’s behalf, and the Magistrates accepted his mitigation and, on this occasion, were prepared to exercise leniency.

The Magistrates imposed the minimum period of disqualification in the circumstances.  Furthermore, they were prepared to offer the drink drivers’ rehabilitation course once again to Mr R, even though he had previously been offered this course when he was convicted the first time around.  Obviously, Mr R was delighted with the outcome, given all the circumstances.