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.