Facing court and potential driving ban - any advice?

newfoundglory

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

Incorrect I'm afraid. Legal aid is not available for driving cases, and therefore the duty solicitor will not be able to assist at Court. I have already mentioned this before, but a solicitor really isn't necessary in this case. I know people have an instinct to seek the advice of a solicitor in relation to a process that they do not understand, and that is entirely natural, but unless something is clearly amiss (which doesn't appear to be the case here), a solicitor really is just a waste of money in cases like this.

Unless that solicitor is an expert in road traffic law, and finds a loophole or procedural problem to get the defendant off the hook (its been done many times before - not condoning drink driving, just stating most people would take this route if it was an option).

vaio

chris1973 wrote: »

That just shows how stupid the insurance industry is. Unlike an accident, Driving over the limit is entirely a pre-meditated decision based entirely on the knowledge of when you last had a drink and the ability to decide on whether you are fit to drive, or whether to call a cab / friend and err on the side of caution and this logic and decision process and the responsibility for doing it, applies to any driver equally, whatever their age.

I'm actually shocked that a person convicted of knowingly driving whilst drunk can obtan a lower premium than somebody with full no claims, no convictions, 20 years clean driving history, and who has the intelligence to remember when he last had a drink, and is mature enough to plan his social activities around his driving responsibilities.

But if your post is accurate, then it seems that is the case. It sends out entirely the wrong message, in other words, insurers and perhaps even society in general say its effectively 'OK' to drink drive if you are in your 60's because you'll still be rewarded with low premiums when you get your license back. Premiums which are lower than most middle aged people pay, who dont D&D

So lets have the information as to who exactly which insurer is quoting this, because as somebody with a clean record who routinely pays £550+ for insurance, I think it needs taking to national press, when insurers 'reward' low premiums to those who have previously been convicted of knowingly, willfully and even smugly putting the lives of others at risk, through a catalogue made up of entirely THEIR OWN decisions and choices.

yep, but it's not the job of insurance companies to punish for drunk driving, they should only be concerned with risk of having to pay out and whilst any evidence of drunk driving is indicative of increased risk that also gets tempered by driving record/age etc which will result in varying loadings for a dd conviction.

In practice this could well mean that a 50+ driver with a good driving history and a dd conviction is still less of a risk than a teetotal 18 year old boy racer in a Corsa and so gets a lower premium

Crazy_Jamie

newfoundglory wrote: »

Unless that solicitor is an expert in road traffic law, and finds a loophole or procedural problem to get the defendant off the hook (its been done many times before - not condoning drink driving, just stating most people would take this route if it was an option).

Absolutely; but what the average person doesn't appreciate is just how unusual these loopholes are in terms of how often they crop up. The fact is that in the vast, vast majority of cases when a suspect thinks that the procedure went without issue, it has and there is no loophole. What too many 'road traffic law expert' solicitors do is convince their clients to spend hundreds or often thousands on solicitors fees and expert reports on the off chance that one of the more obscure loopholes will be present, such as with blood continuity. It is little more than an extreme long shot that so very rarely comes off, and the vast majority of cases cost the client a lot of money in addition to the ban and fine imposed by the Court.

I appreciate why people do instruct solicitors in traffic cases. And I also appreciate that the average person doesn't possess any sort of specialist knowledge, and won't know if their case is one of the minority where a loophole could be found. My point is simply that, generally, instructing a solicitor in cases such as this is entirely unnecessary, a view point that is reinforced by the fact that road traffic solicitors too often don't provide their client with the full picture when they give advice, something that doesn't sit right with me at all.

mgdavid

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

...... It is little more than an extreme long shot that so very rarely comes off, and the vast majority of cases cost the client a lot of money in addition to the ban and fine imposed by the Court. ..........

you can quote source and statistics to back this up, or is it yet another wild guess?

Crazy_Jamie

mgdavid wrote: »

you can quote source and statistics to back this up, or is it yet another wild guess?

'Yet another' wild guess? If you've accused me of guessing wildly in the past or seem to think that I have a habit of doing so, you'll have to remind me, because it's not something I recall.

I don't have statistics to back up my view. It's just from personal experience. In case my previous posts didn't make it obvious (especially this one), I do have more than a little bit of knowledge and experience to draw from in this particular area. Of course my views are my own and people are free to disagree with me, but I'm far from guessing.

McKneff

I dont know why you are all posting advice etc.

The OP will be banned and so they should be.

They deliberately got behind the wheel with more than the drink drive limit in their body, they had been drinking, full stop.

A ban and a fine (and an impact on their future insurance costs) is a punishment for doing that.

I am so against drinking and driving I wish they would ban anyone who is convicted of drinking and driving for life. No messing.

thenudeone

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

If you're under on blood you're not charged, its the end of the matter.

A bit late on this post ,but Yes - Sgt Pepper is correct. A blood reading will replace the breath reading entirely.

To confirm another question - Yes - A conviction for this offence will create a criminal record and DNA and fingerprint records will be kept.

zagfles

McKneff wrote: »

I dont know why you are all posting advice etc.

The OP will be banned and so they should be.

They deliberately got behind the wheel with more than the drink drive limit in their body, they had been drinking, full stop.

A ban and a fine (and an impact on their future insurance costs) is a punishment for doing that.

I am so against drinking and driving I wish they would ban anyone who is convicted of drinking and driving for life. No messing.

The problem is there is so much ignorance of what the legal limit actually means, as the OPs post demonstrates. We are bombarded with simplistic messages like "if you drink don't drive". Unless this means only teetotallers should be allowed to drive, then it's completely meaningless without the context of quantity and time delay between drinking and driving.

People often assume that it's not OK to drive the same night as having a drink, but it is OK to drive the next day. The opposite is often the case.

Take this real-life example. Two blokes, both about 12 stone, go on a works do. The do starts at 7pm.

One of them drives there, has 3 pints of bitter at 4%, and drives home at 1am.

The other bloke gets taxis. He has 5 pints of lager at 5% and 2 double vodkas. He gets a taxi home. The next morning he drives into work.

Who is over the limit? No prizes for guessing, but the difference is quite astounding.

According the the calculator linked below, the first bloke would have a BAC of 0.018 driving home the same night, which would be OK to drive even in Sweden which has a limit of a quarter of the UK limit!

But the second bloke would have a BAC of 0.086 the next morning at 8am - over the UK limit.

http://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_information_bloodalcoholcontentcalculator.php

Be sure to read the disclaimers if you use the above calculator!

vaio

wow, according to that if I start at 6 and finish at midnight I can have 6 pints and still be legal

Scary

zagfles

vaio wrote: »

wow, according to that if I start at 6 and finish at midnight I can have 6 pints and still be legal

Scary

What strength beer did you use?? At 4% you're over the limit. Watch out because if you don't set the beer strength it defaults to 2% !! No beer that I know of is that weak!