Forrest Williams - 24 Hour Motoring Lawyers - page 62 Motoring Advice Blog - Page 62 of 82 - Forrest Williams

Freephone: 0800 1933 999
Mobile Freephone: 01623 397 200

Chat Online

Motoring Advice Blog

Special Reasons Awarded For Drink Driver in Nuneaton Magistrates Court

I attended Nuneaton Magistrates Court last week representing a client who faced a drink driving charge.

My client’s side of the story was that she had been on a night out and had not planned to drive home.  She did not drink much, however, and decided at the end of the night to drive home as she was feeling ill.  She believed she would be under the limit.

She was stopped by the police and breathalyser and was over the limit.

She later discovered that the people she had been out with that night had been adding shots to her drinks to ensure she drank the same amount as them.  They, of course, believed that she would  not be driving home.

This is a very common scenario, and is a case of Spiked Drinks.  Whilst the media portray spiked drinks as being a malicious act done by strangers, it is usually something done by a person’s friends or family with good intentions – usually to help the person relax and have a good time, or to cheer them up if they are down.

There are Special Reasons where a person may be able to avoid a disqualification for drink driving, and having their drinks spiked is one of those reasons.

However, certain criteria must be met – and in this case, my client had knowingly had a very small amount of alcohol, but had had a large amount spiked.  What she thought was illness was actually the effects of the extra drink she had consumed.

If the magistrates believe that a person should have realised they have had more to drink, they are entitled not to find Special Reasons.

This was a complex case, and with my client’s friends all giving evidence that they had spiked her drinks, the issue was not whether the drinks were spiked, but whether she should have realised they were.

I guided the magistrates through the appropriate case law, and in the end they decided that they found sufficient Special Reasons to reduce what could have been a 17 month disqualification to a 7 month disqualification.

Given the circumstances of this case, I believed this to be a good result, and my client was very happy.

Second Time Drink Driver Given 9 Month Reduction in Solihull Magistrates Court

I attended Solihull Magistrates Court last week representing a client who faced a drink driving allegation.

Like many clients, he wanted to plead guilty and take responsibility for what was a poor decision made whilst under the influence of drink.

His reading was reasonably low, and there were no aggravating features.  He had planned to walk the short distance home at the end of the night but, having had a few drinks, decided to drive.

There was no complaint with his driving but he was seen leaving a pub car park and, as often happens, that was enough reason for the police to stop him and breathalyse him.

What complicated this case slightly was that the client did have a previous conviction for drink driving some 8 years ago, meaning that despite his low reading he would automatically be disqualified from driving for 3 years.

Naturally, this result would have devastating effects for my client, and any reduction in that sentence would make a difference to him.

I mitigated on his behalf, and told the magistrates his side of the story.

Before mitigation, the magistrates would have viewed my client mainly in vague terms and numbers – ‘the drink driver who blew X’ – and it was my job to help the magistrates see the person standing before them.

In preparation, I had teased out of my client all of the relevant information, and I was able to tell the magistrates about the way his life had changed in the last 8 years and how he was a committed family man with a responsible job.  I guided them through his day-to-day life and how the disqualification would affect him.  I emphasised that he took full responsibility for this matter.

The magistrates at Solihull Magistrates Court considered all of this information – information they would not have heard if my client had not been represented – and decided that whilst they had to give him a 3 year disqualification, they were sympathetic to his case and would, therefore, allow him to attend the drink driving rehabilitation course.

This is unusual for second time drink drivers, and when completed, will take 9 months off my client’s ban.

My client was delighted, as was I.

Why Chris Hughton was Convicted of Failing to Disclose Drivers Details

I have to declare an interest before I start. I am a Birmingham City fan and a big fan of their ex manager Chris Hughton.

In a sport full of unsavoury characters with seemingly very little morals Chris Hughton has the respect of all in the game.

I was surprised to see him on trial in Solihull Magistrates Court yesterday.

He was charged with failing to disclose drivers details. The procedure for this is that when a vehicle is caught speeding the registered keeper is sent a notice of intended prosecution.

At this stage there is no evidence of who was driving, simply that a car bearing that number plate activated a speed camera.

In order to prosecute someone the police need to know who was driving the car. Hence the notice of intended prosecution and the request for drivers details. These are technically 2 different forms but are often combined in the same notice.

I came into court late whilst waiting for my case to get on so I do not know all of the facts. These are what I have been able to glean. I am pretty certain of them but apologies if anything is incorrect.

It appears that Chris wasn’t the registered keeper of the car (I would have been surprised if he was). It was probably a company car on lease from a finance company.

The request for drivers details goes to the registered keeper (probably the finance company) they then have to return the form saying who was driving. They will nominate the company (Birmingham City FC) who will then be sent a similar form. There is a 14 day time limit to serve this notice. The purpose of this is to allow drivers the chance to remember who was driving. The first notice has to be sent within 14 days. As long as the Registered Keeper gets it within 14 days the time limit has been complied with.

No doubt the Company secretary at Birmingham City will have received the notice and request, checked the records and nominated Chris Hughton. They cannot send the form to him, it has to go back to the police again who will again issue a further request. This time to Chris Hughton. By now a couple of months may have passed. Bear in mind the chain is – Police to Registered Keeper, registered keeper back to police, police to BCFC, BCFC to police, police to Chris Hughton.

Now some months later Chris Hughton is being asked who was driving the car on that day. It appears he made enquiries and discovered that he was away in Barnsley that day, it was a Tuesday night and we won 3-1 😉 So he knows it was not him, he went on the club coach. The car was at home. It appears at court he gave evidence to say that 5 people regularly drive that car but he was unable to say who was driving it that day.

The duty to disclose differs depending upon whether you are the registered keeper or a nominated person. As a nominated person Chris Hughton had to “give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.”

He no doubt asked everyone whether they were driving and no one could remember. I understand that he was in constant contact with the police and told them that he was not able to name the driver.

He was prosecuted and convicted. The Magistrates said that they believed everything he said but that he did not give all the information that was within his power. Simply put, he did not name everyone who may have been driving. If he had given the police the names of all those who may have been driving he would probably have been acquitted.

As it was he was left carrying the can for something that wasn’t his fault. He got 6 points instead of the 3 the driver would have got and a £1000 fine plus £600 costs.

If he had asked for my advice in the beginning I would have advised him to list all the people who it might have been.

It does beggar the question, when he wrote to the police saying “it definitely wasn’t me but I don’t know who it was” why the police didn’t advise him to name all possible drivers?

 

Forrest Williams TV