price1367
TTC Group
Wilbur,
you posted asking about special reasons on the solicitors part of the forum. This only allows the solicitor to reply, so I have created this post on this part, so anyone can contribute.
You say you are having an appeal heard for ‘special reasons’ due to your drinks being spiked.
here is a guide to what you need to prove to succeed:
Arguing special reasons in court
The courts usually require corroborative evidence to prove that a victim’s drink was spiked in motoring law cases:
You say your lab report shows that your reading should have been zero at the time, but it returned at 50 due to the spiked drinks. This means that you have to account for nearly 175ml of spirits being put in your cans, which is quite a bit! Then you have to persuade the court that you would not have noticed this large amount of spirits in ordinary cans of lager.
Your report is only any good if the spiking is backed up with evidence, not just your word, otherwise everyone wold claim that your drinks were spiked. Therefore you need to produce you so called friend (what real friend does this To cause you this grief? ) to give evidence that he spiked your drinks. You will see from the guidance above that this makes him open to be prosecuted himself for aiding and abetting drink driving. It is only fair that you point this out to your friend so he knows what he is letting himself in for.
Pugsley v Hunter is the often quoted case where it was shown that the defence do not have to PROVE that drinks were spiked, but they simply have to show ON THE BALANCE OF PROBABILITY that this was the case. The link is below,
also relevant is DPP v Sharma appeal, which you can read about here:
you posted asking about special reasons on the solicitors part of the forum. This only allows the solicitor to reply, so I have created this post on this part, so anyone can contribute.
You say you are having an appeal heard for ‘special reasons’ due to your drinks being spiked.
here is a guide to what you need to prove to succeed:
Arguing special reasons in court
The courts usually require corroborative evidence to prove that a victim’s drink was spiked in motoring law cases:
- Expert evidence would be required to prove that the drug or alcohol used would have put the victim not only over the limit but at the exact level the police measured in her breath.
- Witness Statements from people who were with the victim to confirm any alcohol or drug that the victim knowingly consumed.
- If friends have spiked your drink, then their evidence confessing to the spiking can make all the difference but then this leaves them open to prosecution themselves.
Thinking of Arguing Your Drinks Were Spiked? Think Again... - Geoffrey Miller Solicitors
www.motoroffence.co.uk
You say your lab report shows that your reading should have been zero at the time, but it returned at 50 due to the spiked drinks. This means that you have to account for nearly 175ml of spirits being put in your cans, which is quite a bit! Then you have to persuade the court that you would not have noticed this large amount of spirits in ordinary cans of lager.
Your report is only any good if the spiking is backed up with evidence, not just your word, otherwise everyone wold claim that your drinks were spiked. Therefore you need to produce you so called friend (what real friend does this To cause you this grief? ) to give evidence that he spiked your drinks. You will see from the guidance above that this makes him open to be prosecuted himself for aiding and abetting drink driving. It is only fair that you point this out to your friend so he knows what he is letting himself in for.
Pugsley v Hunter is the often quoted case where it was shown that the defence do not have to PROVE that drinks were spiked, but they simply have to show ON THE BALANCE OF PROBABILITY that this was the case. The link is below,
Pugsley v Hunter: 1973 - swarb.co.uk
The court discussed the basis of a submission that there existed special reasons for non-disqualification for driving whilst under the influence of drink when the driver’s drinks had been spiked. It was necessary for the applicant to show first, that his drinks had been laced, and secondly that...
swarb.co.uk
also relevant is DPP v Sharma appeal, which you can read about here:
Director of Public Prosecutions, R (on the application of) v Sharma, [2005] EWHC 879 (Admin) | England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court), Judgment, Law, casemine.com
Get free access to the complete judgment in Director of Public Prosecutions, R (on the application of) v Sharma on CaseMine.
www.casemine.com