Carl Millar recently represented Mr V at Sunderland Magistrates Court in relation to an allegation of driving with excess alcohol.

Mr V gave a reading of 40ųg in 100ml of breath at the police station.  This is where the point of prosecution begins.  At such a low reading, he is entitled to take the option of a blood or a urine test but it is for the police officer to decide whether it will be a blood or a urine test.  Mr V’s instructions were that he was influenced by the police officer and dissuaded from not taking the option of a blood test as he had the perception that he would be banned anyway from his conversations with the police officer.  Section 8(2) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 had not been adhered to by the police officer in the case.

The defendant should understand the option he has been given and must be in a position to make an informed decision.

The Magistrates decided that the conversation with the police officer influenced Mr V’s decision making process not to exercise his option as he thought that his breath reading would result in a ban in any event.  As such, Mr V was acquitted.

Carl Millar recently represented Mr M at Worcester Magistrates Court.  Mr M had a reading of 56ųg in 100ml of breath.  The Magistrates Court Guidelines suggest a period of disqualification of between 12-16 months where the level of reading is between 36-59ųg in 100ml of breath.  Obviously, Mr M was very concerned that he would be disqualified for a period of 16 months as he was at the higher end of the scale.  Carl Millar was able to persuade the magistrates to disqualify Mr M for the minimum period of 12 months, reduced to 9 months upon completion of the drink drivers’ rehabilitation course.  The defendant did have powerful mitigation that the magistrates were prepared to accept on this occasion.

Carl Millar recently represented Mr T at Newcastle under Lyme Magistrates Court in Staffordshire.  Mr T already had 6 endorsable penalty points on his licence.  The accusation was that he was travelling up to 120mph and he was obviously concerned that he would receive a further 6 points which meant that he could be disqualified under the totting up procedure.  Normally, the magistrates would disqualify a defendant for a minimum period of 6 months under the totting up procedure if 12 penalty points or more are accumulated within a 3 year period.  Carl Millar was able to persuade the magistrates to disqualify the defendant based upon the single offence alone and he was disqualified for a short period of 14 days.

Carl Millar recently represented Miss B at Scarborough Magistrates Court in Yorkshire in relation to an allegation of driving with excess alcohol.  The level of reading was at 111ųg alcohol in 100ml of breath.  The defendant did have powerful mitigation in that she had no initial intention to drive and the distance driven was relatively short, albeit not sufficient enough to establish special reasons.  The Magistrates Court Guidelines suggest a period of disqualification of between 23-28 months where the reading is between 90-120ųg alcohol in 100ml of breath.  The Magistrates were persuaded to only disqualify her for 24 months, and offered a further reduction to a period of 18 months upon successful completion of the drink drivers’ rehabilitation course.

In addition, the starting point for such a high reading is a medium level community order which would normally be at least 120 hours.  Again, our Mr Millar presented powerful mitigation on behalf of the defendant when the Court considered the impact of disqualification upon the defendant they were prepared to keep the community penalty down to 60 hours.

Carl Millar recently represented Mr K at Preston Magistrates Court in Lancashire in relation to an allegation of driving with excess alcohol.  The defendant had pleaded guilty but by way of special reasons.  The special reasons advanced were that the defendant’s drinks were laced unbeknown to him.

The basic law in relation to requirements to be fulfilled before a finding can be made that special reasons exist is to be found in the case of R v Wickens (1958) where the Court of Criminal Appeal prescribed four criteria that must exist in order to raise the issue of special reasons:

a)                   It must be a mitigating or extenuating circumstance;

b)                   It must not amount in law to a defence to the charge;

c)                   It must be directly connected with the commission of the offence; and

d)                   The matter must be one that the Court ought properly to take into consideration when imposing punishment.

Normally, in criminal cases, it is for the prosecution to prove the case beyond any reasonable doubt.  The burden of proof shifts when the defendant advances special reasons in that the defendant must show that special reasons exist on the balance of probabilities.  In other words, it is for the defendant to raise special reasons and he / she must be believed by the Court.  Specifically in drink driving cases, the leading case is DPP v O’Connor (1992).  This case states that when seeking to establish a special reasons in a laced drinks case, the motorist would have to establish by relevant and admissible evidence that his drink had been laced, that he did not know or suspect that his drink had been laced, and that, if he had not consumed the laced drink, he would not have exceeded the prescribed limit.

In Mr K’s case, the “spiker” did not even turn up in Court.  However, Mr K’s girlfriend gave very credible evidence that she had witnessed the spiker pour vodka into Mr K’s cokes.  Unfortunately Mr K had a cold at the time and could not taste the vodka in his coke.  The explanation advanced to the Court was that the girlfriend and the spiker had no idea that the defendant would be driving later that evening. 

In special reasons cases it is important to obtain the evidence from a toxicologist as this is a factor in demonstrating relevant and admissible evidence.  An expert toxicologist can work out the level of alcohol in a defendant’s system based upon the claimed alcohol consumption.  The toxicologist can compare what the level of alcohol would have risen to based upon the extra laced drink.  This evidence is vital in establishing a special reasons defence in laced or spiked drinks.

Tom recently acted on behalf of Mr C at Hertford Magistrates Court.  Mr C was charged with driving a motor vehicle with excess alcohol.  The level of alcohol in his breath was 104.  Ordinarily, this would give rise to a period of disqualification of up to 28 months and Mr C could have expected to have received a medium level community order.  The Court heard powerful mitigation and decided to disqualify Mr C for a period of 24 months, which would be reduced by a further 6 months upon successful completion of the drink drivers’ rehabilitation course.  Instead of imposing a medium level community order, the Court were persuaded to impose a fine only.  Obviously, Mr C was delighted with the result in the circumstances.

Carl Millar recently represented Mr G at Pwllheli Magistrates Court in Wales, in relation to an allegation of driving with excess alcohol.  Mr G had a reading of 66ųg alcohol / 100ml of breath.  The Magistrates Court Guidelines recommend a period of disqualification of between 17-22 months at that level of reading.  With powerful mitigation, Carl Millar was able to persuade the Magistrates to reduce the period of disqualification to the minimum sentence which is 12 months.  Mr G was also offered the drink drivers’ rehabilitation course which will reduce his sentence even further, down to 9 months.

It is important that a case is prepared thoroughly so that all factors are considered by the Magistrates.  The Magistrates do not know anything about a defendant when he walks into Court apart from the fact that he has been charged with drink driving and therefore only has a minor detail which is a micro spectrum of the whole picture.  Mr G was a man of good character who had not committed any previous offences.  His mitigation was that he had only driven a short distance and he made a genuine and honest mistake in that he thought he was driving on private land.  In saying that, neither of the above were sufficient to qualify for special reasons.

Mr G was delighted with his outcome as a previous solicitor had advised him that he would face a period of disqualification of 20 months instead of the 9 months which he faces.

Carl Millar represented Mr A at Salford Magistrates Court in Manchester.  Unfortunately, this was the client’s fourth drink driving offence within a period of 8 years.  The Magistrates Court Guidelines suggest a minimum period of disqualification of 36 months when it is the defendant’s second offence in ten years.  In Mr A’s case, he was off the scale in respect of the guidelines for the Magistrates and he faced the real possibility of a custodial sentence.  Indeed, it would be usual for a custodial sentence to follow such a regular pattern of offending.

Carl Millar was able to persuade the Magistrates that a custodial sentence would have no benefit to the defendant and that he would benefit from education in terms of an alcohol awareness programme and that he should be enrolled on the drink drivers’ rehabilitation course.  After a long day, the Magistrates finally accepted our Mr Millar’s mitigation on behalf of the defendant and he was given a community penalty with a direction that he attends the alcohol awareness programme.

Tom acted on behalf of Mr J at Oxford Magistrates Court.  Mr J was charged with drink driving.  The level of reading in breath was 118.  Current Magistrates Court Sentencing Guidelines would indicate that Mr J could have expected to have received a period of disqualification of up to 3 years and a community based penalty.  Upon hearing the significant personal mitigation afforded to the defendant, the Court only imposed a period of disqualification of 20 months, which would be reduced to 15 months if the drink drivers’ rehabilitation course was completed successfully.  No community based penalty was imposed, which was an excellent result for Mr J in the circumstances.

Carl Millar recently represented Mr D at Trafford Magistrates Court in Manchester, in relation to an allegation of failing to stop at the scene of an accident, failing to report an accident and careless driving.  Mr D was a “new driver”( a new driver is governed by the Road Traffic (new drivers) Act 1995 which establishes a 2 year probationary period for newly qualified drivers and applies to any person who first passes a driving test on or after its commencement date, which was on June 1^st 1997.  The accumulation of 6 or more penalty points by such a driver before the end of the period of 2 years beginning on the date on which he first passed the driving test will result in the revocation of his licence and the requirement for him to pass another driving test in order to restore his previous entitlement),  and therefore faced revocation of his licence if he accumulated 6 penalty points or more within the probationary period, which is 2 years from the date of passing your driving test.

Failing to stop at the scene of an accident carries between 5-10 endorsable penalty points.  Likewise, failing to report an accident carries between 5-10 endorsable penalty points.  Careless driving carries between 3-9 penalty points.  Mr D was very concerned that his licence would be revoked and requested that Carl Millar try to persuade the Court to give him a short period of disqualification instead of his licence being revoked. 

If somebody’s licence is revoked then they will need to arrange for a driving test once again which will involve applying for a provisional licence and being subject to the terms of a provisional licence, before having to pass both the theory and practical driving tests before they are in a position to be able to drive.  Also, the penalty points will remain on the licence.  All three aforementioned offences carry a discretionary period of disqualification.

In Mr D’s case, Carl Millar was able to persuade the Magistrates at Trafford Magistrates Court to disqualify Mr D for a very short period, instead of his licence being revoked.  This has the advantage of the defendant not having to take his tests again, and he will have a clean licence once the period of disqualification has expired.