Attempting to drive while intoxicated.

Convicted Driver Insurance
Are you a foreign national? Did they inform you of your right to contact your embassy and request legal assistance?
Embassy they did ask if I want them informed but I declined. For legal assistance they promised to get me a duty solicitor but I never got one till I left the police station
 
Are you a foreign national? Did they inform you of your right to contact your embassy and request legal assistance?

Embassy they did ask if I want them informed but I declined. For legal assistance they promised to get me a duty solicitor but I never got one till I left the police station
Is English your native language? If not did they offer you an interpreter?
 
Are you a foreign national? Did they inform you of your right to contact your embassy and request legal assistance?
anenome, I know where you are coming from with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, but even if the police haven't followed the requirements to the letter of the law, the fact that the OP can speak English mitigates this somehow.

It is very seldom that 'lack of due process,' will get you of a charge such as this and the cost of employing a lawyer will be expensive.

Plus the OP was stopped on the hard shoulder and we only have tehir word that they weren't drinking before stopping. They did say they were sleeping.
 
anenome, I know where you are coming from with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, but even if the police haven't followed the requirements to the letter of the law, the fact that the OP can speak English mitigates this somehow.

It is very seldom that 'lack of due process,' will get you of a charge such as this and the cost of employing a lawyer will be expensive.

Plus the OP was stopped on the hard shoulder and we only have tehir word that they weren't drinking before stopping. They did say they were sleeping.
It's only 'very seldom' because so few are willing to fight back and hold the police to account. Some of them (I could name and shame but I won't) are getting away with flagrant procedural breaches of PACE. Those who are able to fight back often do get off, more than people seem to realize. And it isn't necessarily expensive. Some motoring insurance policies will cover defence of a drink drive prosecution if the solicitor believes there is a 51% chance of acquittal. Just 51%. Not all lawyers will take insurance but some very good ones do. Also, it doesn't matter if 'he speaks English'. That doesn't mean he has the capacity to understand legal complexities of motoring law in a foreign country without consulting a lawyer. I speak fluent French and I would be at a total loss to know French motoring law were I, god forbid, arrested in that country. Again, as I've said before, there are explicit provisions of PACE for foreign nationals that the police must follow. The real issue, I think, is that he was entitled to a duty solicitor; he asked for a duty solicitor, and was denied. That is in breach of PACE Code C, and it does matter because he was not only denied a lawyer but also suffered detriment as a result of having not had proper advice (has now been charged and facing prosecution in a foreign country). I'm reasonably certain that a good criminal defence lawyer could move to strike out evidence as inadmissible under s.78 PACE on grounds of unfairness. He also wasn't 'attempting to drive'. That isn't even the correct charge which a duty solicitor would have known had he been able to consult one. The engine was off. The keys were in his pocket and he was asleep. How is that 'attempting to drive'? And 'we only have their word' that they weren't drinking before stopping'. True (though I'm not sure why you would assume an anonymous person coming here for support is lying). On the other hand, the court will have only the word of the police who refused him a duty solicitor.
 
It's only 'very seldom' because so few are willing to fight back and hold the police to account. Some of them (I could name and shame but I won't) are getting away with flagrant procedural breaches of PACE. Those who are able to fight back often do get off, more than people seem to realize. And it isn't necessarily expensive. Some motoring insurance policies will cover defence of a drink drive prosecution if the solicitor believes there is a 51% chance of acquittal. Just 51%. Not all lawyers will take insurance but some very good ones do. Also, it doesn't matter if 'he speaks English'. That doesn't mean he has the capacity to understand legal complexities of motoring law in a foreign country without consulting a lawyer. I speak fluent French and I would be at a total loss to know French motoring law were I, god forbid, arrested in that country. Again, as I've said before, there are explicit provisions of PACE for foreign nationals that the police must follow. The real issue, I think, is that he was entitled to a duty solicitor; he asked for a duty solicitor, and was denied. That is in breach of PACE Code C, and it does matter because he was not only denied a lawyer but also suffered detriment as a result of having not had proper advice (has now been charged and facing prosecution in a foreign country). I'm reasonably certain that a good criminal defence lawyer could move to strike out evidence as inadmissible under s.78 PACE on grounds of unfairness. He also wasn't 'attempting to drive'. That isn't even the correct charge which a duty solicitor would have known had he been able to consult one. The engine was off. The keys were in his pocket and he was asleep. How is that 'attempting to drive'? And 'we only have their word' that they weren't drinking before stopping'. True (though I'm not sure why you would assume an anonymous person coming here for support is lying). On the other hand, the court will have only the word of the police who refused him a duty solicitor.
Good debate.

It would be interesting to know the outcome of this, and I do agree that rules are there for a reason, but so many people forget to 'apply' at certain time, and to be honest the POlice probably had no idea about the section of the code you have quoted.
 
The real issue, I think, is that he was entitled to a duty solicitor; he asked for a duty solicitor, and was denied. That is in breach of PACE Code C, and it does matter because he was not only denied a lawyer but also suffered detriment as a result of having not had proper advice (has now been charged and facing prosecution in a foreign country).
Drink and drug driving offences are amongst the few offences where the police are allowed to proceed without a solicitor present. Likewise, they don't need to wait for an appropriate adult where it would normally be required. This is because the blood, urine or breath sample need to be collected as soon as possible to prove the offence and the courts don't want to encourage delay tactics. If they were required to wait for solicitors, appropriate adults or parents, those people would definitely wait a couple of hours to arrive to give the arrestee the best possible chance to avoid a conviction.

Provided a solicitor was called this wouldn't harm the prosecution's case at all, even if the defendant was processed and released before they arrived.
 
Drink and drug driving offences are amongst the few offences where the police are allowed to proceed without a solicitor present. Likewise, they don't need to wait for an appropriate adult where it would normally be required. This is because the blood, urine or breath sample need to be collected as soon as possible to prove the offence and the courts don't want to encourage delay tactics. If they were required to wait for solicitors, appropriate adults or parents, those people would definitely wait a couple of hours to arrive to give the arrestee the best possible chance to avoid a conviction.

Provided a solicitor was called this wouldn't harm the prosecution's case at all, even if the defendant was processed and released before they arrived.
Oh so looks like no way out for me
 
Oh so looks like no way out for me
Oh so looks like no way out for me
They can do all the samples they want before a solicitor arrives but they cannot refuse you the right to consult a solicitor. They must make every effort to request a duty solicitor as soon as possible during your detention once you've requested it. It doesn't have to be in person--you are entitled to at least a phone consultation with a duty solicitor for a non-indictable offence. And they certainly cannot interview you (did they interview you? you haven't said), without a solicitor, unless there are compelling reasons that clearly don't apply in your case. There are strict protocols to follow under PACE Code C 2019, section 6 regarding right to legal advice/solicitors. And there is nothing whatsoever in PACE that allows police *to deny* a detainee a solicitor 'in drink and drug driving offences'. Every single action taken while you're detention needs to be documented and justified in your custody record. So it would be interesting to see whether they requested a solicitor or not and if not, why not.

You need a lawyer, especially as a foreign national. Have you consulted one?

Drink and drug driving offences are amongst the few offences where the police are allowed to proceed without a solicitor present. Likewise, they don't need to wait for an appropriate adult where it would normally be required. This is because the blood, urine or breath sample need to be collected as soon as possible to prove the offence and the courts don't want to encourage delay tactics. If they were required to wait for solicitors, appropriate adults or parents, those people would definitely wait a couple of hours to arrive to give the arrestee the best possible chance to avoid a conviction.

Provided a solicitor was called this wouldn't harm the prosecution's case at all, even if the defendant was processed and released before they arrived.
 
There are strict protocols to follow under PACE Code C 2019, section 6 regarding right to legal advice/solicitors. And there is nothing whatsoever in PACE that allows police *to deny* a detainee a solicitor 'in drink and drug driving offences'.
The poster said that they did speak to a duty solicitor, so one was called. It sounds like they were released before the solicitor arrived, which is not uncommon, they can get quite busy.

This person is perfectly within their rights to consult a solicitor, but what you're talking about here isn't going to get them acquitted. I've seen it fail as an argument repeatedly.
 
The poster said that they did speak to a duty solicitor, so one was called. It sounds like they were released before the solicitor arrived, which is not uncommon, they can get quite busy.

This person is perfectly within their rights to consult a solicitor, but what you're talking about here isn't going to get them acquitted. I've seen it fail as an argument repeatedly.
"For legal assistance they promised to get me a duty solicitor but I never got one till I left the police station." How do we know from this that it was a duty solicitor called by police? I may have missed a comment. What was their big hurry to release him before he had seen a solicitor? Had he been there 24 hours already? And he hasn't said whether he was interviewed or not and I continue to maintain that they could not have interviewed him without a duty solicitor, had he requested one, which he did ,without jeopardising the prosecution. This is where the foreign national factor also plays in--there are separate procedures in these cases, as explicitly noted in the custody record forms.
 
"For legal assistance they promised to get me a duty solicitor but I never got one till I left the police station." How do we know from this that it was a duty solicitor called by police? I may have missed a comment. What was their big hurry to release him before he had seen a solicitor? Had he been there 24 hours already? And he hasn't said whether he was interviewed or not and I continue to maintain that they could not have interviewed him without a duty solicitor, had he requested one, which he did ,without jeopardising the prosecution. This is where the foreign national factor also plays in--there are separate procedures in these cases, as explicitly noted in the custody record forms.
From arrest it generally takes less than an hour to get an evidential sample. It can sometimes be longer in some areas. Once the sample is taken often people are released, that is at police discretion. Generally if they are not heavily intoxicated they are released after the sample is taken. A duty solicitor can take many hours to arrive once called if busy.
Being interviewed for a standard drink/drug drive offence is very uncommon. Most arrestees are released without interview. But if an interview is conducted then yes you are entitled to have a solicitor present.
Again, this is not the line of argument that would result in acquittal. It just doesn't work in actual courts.
The majority of acquittals for drink/drug drive offences come from hiring a solicitor to look at the entire process for procedural errors. It's always a gamble and it's not cheap, but if someone wants to do it they are entitled to do so. But I can't stress enough that wasting time chasing the duty solicitor angle is not worth it.
 
Oh so looks like no way out for me

They can do all the samples they want before a solicitor arrives but they cannot refuse you the right to consult a solicitor. They must make every effort to request a duty solicitor as soon as possible during your detention once you've requested it. It doesn't have to be in person--you are entitled to at least a phone consultation with a duty solicitor for a non-indictable offence. And they certainly cannot interview you (did they interview you? you haven't said), without a solicitor, unless there are compelling reasons that clearly don't apply in your case. There are strict protocols to follow under PACE Code C 2019, section 6 regarding right to legal advice/solicitors. And there is nothing whatsoever in PACE that allows police *to deny* a detainee a solicitor 'in drink and drug driving offences'. Every single action taken while you're detention needs to be documented and justified in your custody record. So it would be interesting to see whether they requested a solicitor or not and if not, why not.

You need a lawyer, especially as a foreign national. Have you consulted one?
I have a lawyer yes but on the solicitor they interviewed me without one but I had requested and they told me the solicitor will call and I never got a call
 
I have a lawyer yes but on the solicitor they interviewed me without one but I had requested and they told me the solicitor will call and I never got a call
All I can say to you is that you need to manage expectations. If you think you're not legally guilty of this offence, and you are willing to pay to challenge it, then you should do so. But I strongly advise against throwing money at it based only on the argument of not having a duty solicitor. If you accept the risk of paying money and still being convicted then you are entitled to do so.
 
Hi there
Sorry for your situation, I had a very similar one and was charged with drunk in charge. It depends on why you were pulled over, were you having car troubles. Also as a foriegn national are you driving on a UK licence ? If not they can't take away a foreign licence and they can't take away what you don't have.

I didn't lose my licence but got 10 points, as I have two previous drink/drive offence within recent history (gained at a difficult time in the past) I was expecting a ban. So it's not all doom and gloom - ensure your mitigating circumstances are clear to the magistrates, they are only human.

Techara
 
Hi there
Sorry for your situation, I had a very similar one and was charged with drunk in charge. It depends on why you were pulled over, were you having car troubles. Also as a foriegn national are you driving on a UK licence ? If not they can't take away a foreign licence and they can't take away what you don't have.

I didn't lose my licence but got 10 points, as I have two previous drink/drive offence within recent history (gained at a difficult time in the past) I was expecting a ban. So it's not all doom and gloom - ensure your mitigating circumstances are clear to the magistrates, they are only human.

Techara
Got a uk license recently as a direct conversion from my foreign one and my charge is unfortunately attempting to drive whilst intoxicated.
 
Got a uk license recently as a direct conversion from my foreign one and my charge is unfortunately attempting to drive whilst intoxicated.

But you still have your foreign one, I had an Australian licence ? For information I used the Duty Solicitor at court and she did explain about the solicitor not being a 'given' when drink driving. She also explained about the sentencing guidelines that the new magistrates have to work to. I would check those on line as your reading is quite low considering (think mine was in the 90's). I wrote a letter explaining my regret, and explaining my personal circumstances, as I said they were very understanding. I was amazed myself but I did truely regret it and understood the consequences. Good luck but all you can do is prepare and take the judgement Ime afraid. I hate to be the one to say it but the worrying makes no difference (take it from one who has been there!). S
 
Enter code DRINKDRIVING10 during checkout for 10% off
Top