1) Fail to provide specimen - person in charge of vehicle (2) Drive motor vehicle when alcohol level above limit

[mrturk]

I am just waiting for the next time i will face the police to find out if they will charge me or not. And about fighting the case and to prove that i drunk after is like p...ing against the wind. As much as i know that i really drunk after, as a reoffender i have 0 credibility.

I am a bit confused about one thing, i may refused when they came into my house to give breath sample but i did at the police station, is it normal to be still charged with refuse of sample ?

Yes, that's perfectly normal. Failing to provide is an offence that occurs exactly at the moment you refuse/are unable to provide the sample without reason. Even if you change your mind five minutes later you can still be charged. The idea is to stop people from choosing to provide a sample at a later time when they're more likely to be under the limit without consequence.

You personally don't have to prove that you drank after the offence yet. The burden of proof is initially on the Prosecution. When you raise the defence the police will take details of what you allege to have drunk and at what times, and details including your height, weight, age and gender. They will then request an alcohol technical defence calculation from a toxicologist. If the calculations support your account of drinking after and place you under the limit at the time of driving they typically don't even go to trial.

If the calculations don't support your account, then you are very likely to be convicted. Your only option then would be to hire your own toxicologist to do their own calculations to see if they agree. At that point it starts getting very expensive, however.

 

[Everywhere]

To be honest i had to breath samples first 75 and the second 84. Clearly this is a example that the alcohol was rising instead of dropping.

 

[mrturk]

To be honest i had to breath samples first 75 and the second 84. Clearly this is a example that the alcohol was rising instead of dropping.

That won't be taken into account, only the calculations will matter. The lower reading will be used.

 

[Everywhere]

That won't be taken into account, only the calculations will matter. The lower reading will be used.

I am curious if their machine was right. I spoke with a solicitor and he thinks is quite a value gap in between the two readings.

 

[mrturk]

I am curious if their machine was right. I spoke with a solicitor and he thinks is quite a value gap in between the two readings.

No - the MGDD/A form tells you if the readings can be used. For a lower reading of 75, up to 86 is acceptable for the second reading. The court will take it as accurate. If you run that defence your solicitor will charge you a small fortune to hire a breath machine expert and you'll still be convicted. That argument never works.

 

[stu]

I am curious if their machine was right. I spoke with a solicitor and he thinks is quite a value gap in between the two readings.

Don't fall for that mate. I did 9 months ago and paid the starter £3k fee for the first hearing. Solicitors told me they would check the mouthpiece, if the machine was faulty and if the police followed procedure. If any of the above wasn't right they told me I had a case, desperate as I was I paid them. 2 days before my first hearing I got a call to say the machine was fine, the mouthpiece was fine and the paperwork had been filled in correctly. When I asked where I got from there they told me it would cost another 3k to plea not guilty and fight it. I asked what the next step was and it would be another 3k for the final hearing. With no guarantee I'd win.

Long story short, I got the outcome that that a duty solicitor predicted I'd get the night I had been arrested and I spent 3k searching a better outcome.

Sorry to bring the bad news mate, I really am. 9 months on, Is am allowed to drive today but I annoys the life out of.me that I spent that 3k for virtually nothing.

Don't get me wrong, your circumstances suggest that perhaps legal advice will probably be worth it but if you think there is a miracle outcome like a faulty machine or the police didn't fill out the form then the likelihood is you are hoping for too much I am afriad

 

[JamesH2122]

Just to add that failure to provide at the roadside is a much less serious offence than failure to provide at the station and it will merely be rolled into the main drink driving offence and considered and aggravating factor when it comes to sentencing.

 

[Everywhere]

I am not going to play those machines and forms, i was just curious. Strange how they can take you from the house long time after. I am just waiting from them to see if they charging me or not. So far is up to them now to prove that i drove.

 

[stu12341234]

I am just waiting for the next time i will face the police to find out if they will charge me or not. And about fighting the case and to prove that i drunk after is like p...ing against the wind. As much as i know that i really drunk after, as a reoffender i have 0 credibility.

I am a bit confused about one thing, i may refused when they came into my house to give breath sample but i did at the police station, is it normal to be still charged with refuse of sample ?

Hi,

The roadside breath test cannot be used in court but could be mentioned.
The evidential breath test at the station is what will be used in court.

Kind regards,




Stu

 

[stu12341234]

Yes, that's perfectly normal. Failing to provide is an offence that occurs exactly at the moment you refuse/are unable to provide the sample without reason. Even if you change your mind five minutes later you can still be charged. The idea is to stop people from choosing to provide a sample at a later time when they're more likely to be under the limit without consequence.

You personally don't have to prove that you drank after the offence yet. The burden of proof is initially on the Prosecution. When you raise the defence the police will take details of what you allege to have drunk and at what times, and details including your height, weight, age and gender. They will then request an alcohol technical defence calculation from a toxicologist. If the calculations support your account of drinking after and place you under the limit at the time of driving they typically don't even go to trial.

If the calculations don't support your account, then you are very likely to be convicted. Your only option then would be to hire your own toxicologist to do their own calculations to see if they agree. At that point it starts getting very expensive, however.

Hi,

Correct, that may be the prosecution stance on the case.

However time/money will come into play via the case.

I won via "Lack of evidence".

1# I had no car.

2# I walked up on foot had no car.

3# I went and checked if did anything wrong noticed I did, and had there phone number in my pocket as I left.

4# 10 hours later I was released, did not want a solicitor was offered during my detention but said no.

5# I knew I was not guilty .

6# I was even brought home by the same officers that locked me up.

It was a day I will never forget, I am here to help & I also thanked the same officers that not only locked me up but brought me home also.

They are great and deserve the best, very humble.

Kind Regards,




Stu

 

[Luna2000]

I need a bit of help and advice from someone who had a similar situation.

Few nights ago i went to a local pub. There i had some apple juice and some guiness.
I was just fine and about to leave when someone started a argument with me.
That person usually is a member of the bar but that night she was on her night off.
The bouncers kicked me out but they hold her side.

I went home in anger and i drunk a whole bottle of 15%abv wine straight away.

20-30 minutes later the police came to my door and arrested me on suspicion of drink driving.

Apparently the bouncers reported me for drink driving. Also mentioning that they tried to stop me but they never did.

I had only a short statement that " i left around 1.30am went home and drunk a bottle of wine. I mentioned to the officers who arrested me but they were not interested."

Not remembering well if they asked me to provide breathing sample as i said i am not on the car and clearly you can see me sat on the sofa in my own house.
Then by the time i got to the police station i was absolutely drunk from all that wine.
I Accepted to blow 2 readings 75 and 84.

Apart of the statement everything else was no comment.

I didn't addmited driving but only drinking home after leaving the pub.

Now i am on pre-charge for sample refuse ( even if i gave them 2 sample at the police station.)
And the drink driving.
Bailed on conditional discharge with a date to return to police station in 1 month.

Could they proove that i was over the limit when i left the pub ?
Could the bouncers statement can sustain their case as a witness?
Would they look for the pub cctv to watch me drinking every single sip ?
Also i got home just before 2am and they was at my door around 2:25am.

My credibility is not fantastic as i had a drink driving charge nearly 7 years ago.

Hmm. A bottle of wine in 25 minutes. First off, did you drive home and were you seen getting into your vehicle and driving?

I was seen getting (falling) out of my vehicle, going into shop to buy more booze (which luckily I didn't drink,) and then driving home. The guy who saw me reported me to the cops and some time (?) later they arrived at my house, took me away in a van anddreathalysed me at the station where I blew 96.

At no time did the police see me driving. They don't have to, They had eye witness testimony.

It was also my 2nd offence in 2 years. It takes 15 minutes for the first unit of alcohol to enter your system and it then clears at 1 unit per hour.

So if you did drive home you will need witnesses to prove you only had 'some' Guiness (what's your definition of 'some?') But proving you were sober at the time will be really difficult without involving an expert.

 

[Everywhere]

Hmm. A bottle of wine in 25 minutes. First off, did you drive home and were you seen getting into your vehicle and driving?

I was seen getting (falling) out of my vehicle, going into shop to buy more booze (which luckily I didn't drink,) and then driving home. The guy who saw me reported me to the cops and some time (?) later they arrived at my house, took me away in a van anddreathalysed me at the station where I blew 96.

At no time did the police see me driving. They don't have to, They had eye witness testimony.

It was also my 2nd offence in 2 years. It takes 15 minutes for the first unit of alcohol to enter your system and it then clears at 1 unit per hour.

So if you did drive home you will need witnesses to prove you only had 'some' Guiness (what's your definition of 'some?') But proving you were sober at the time will be really difficult without involving an expert.

The report was made by the bouncers who didn't had a clue if i drunk or not, they just assumed. And they done the report because i got in a argument with one of their mates who was on her day off. Not sure if they will do statements but there are bo other witnesses or cctv.

 

[Luna2000]

The report was made by the bouncers who didn't had a clue if i drunk or not, they just assumed. And they done the report because i got in a argument with one of their mates who was on her day off. Not sure if they will do statements but there are bo other witnesses or cctv.

It's gonnae be tough for you to prove this either way. The Hip Flask defense is notoriously difficult to prove.

 

[Everywhere]

Before the flask defence i am hoping that they will not be able to prove who drove the car, as i didn't admit driving at all.

 

[Luna2000]

Before the flask defence i am hoping that they will not be able to prove who drove the car, as i didn't admit driving at all.

But if you drove to the pub in your car and then it suddenly appears back at your house together with yourself, a natural assumption is that it was you that was driving. The pub may also have CCTV of you getting into your car which they could have handed to the Police.

I believe it is also an offence (albeit a lesser one,) not to disclose to the police the name of anyone driving your car at a particular time.

I had also thought about leaving the car where it was and walking back hom after my 2nd offence, but then the question would have been asked, 'Well how did the car get there.'

I wish you luck.

 

[Dave W.]

Whilst this forum can be very supportive and informative, ultimately it's no substitute for professional advice.

Sit down with a solicitor and have a totally honest discussion with them about what happened.

Get a local one, (not a drink/drive specialist because they're exorbitant and often no better) - it'll cost £200 - £300. You'll have a clear idea then of what you're facing and be able to make some informed decisions.

Good luck.

P.S. I'm not a solicitor

 

[stu12341234]

But if you drove to the pub in your car and then it suddenly appears back at your house together with yourself, a natural assumption is that it was you that was driving. The pub may also have CCTV of you getting into your car which they could have handed to the Police.

I believe it is also an offence (albeit a lesser one,) not to disclose to the police the name of anyone driving your car at a particular time.

I had also thought about leaving the car where it was and walking back hom after my 2nd offence, but then the question would have been asked, 'Well how did the car get there.'

I wish you luck.

Hi,

Most pubs/bar have cctv around the bar if that can shown they were not consuming alcohol then that may help the case.

Kind regards,




Stu

 

[Everywhere]

Hi,

Most pubs/bar have cctv around the bar if that can shown they were not consuming alcohol then that may help the case.

Kind regards,




Stu

Not sure how they can prove that in the glass was alcohol and i haven't bought just for myself.

 

[stu12341234]

Not sure how they can prove that in the glass was alcohol and i haven't bought just for myself.

Hi,

Good point. If I were you I would go back the same bar and politely ask them to make a statement on your behalf with camera footage.

If you did no wrong, Fight it!

Kind regards,




Stu

 

[stu12341234]

Sorry for double post.