Client Not Guilty of being Drunk in Charge of a Vehicle

Case study summary

Our client was charged with being drunk in charge of a vehicle, after officers had found him in a parked car and breathalysed him. Our specialist motoring lawyers successfully argued that he had no intention to drive and he was found not guilty.

Case study

After being charged with the offence of being drunk in charge of a car, our client was terrified that he would lose his license and his ability to work as a plumber (a job which required him to travel around the area and carry specialist tools). He instructed our specialist motoring lawyers to represent him to ensure he had the best possible chance of avoiding this.

This charge related to an evening when the client had an argument with one of his parents and left the family home. He was planning to drive to his parent's house to spend the evening there. Once he arrived at his parent’s house, his parents were asleep and not answering the door. He tried to call them but he could not get through. He decided to spend the night in the car and bought some food and alcoholic beverages from a nearby shop first, which he consumed, not intending to drive his car again until the next day.

Two police officers alleged that they had seen our client pulled up at the side of the road. They state that there was smoke coming out of the car and that the engine was running. They stated that they approached our client and he took the keys out of the ignition, as though he was about to drive away. They thought the client appeared to be under the influence and conducted a breath test. The breath test confirmed that your client was over the legal limit. Our client was then taken to the police station where a further breath test was confirmed the earlier reading. The police did not accept our clients explanation that he was not intending to drive.

Our specialist lawyers accessed the evidence and found many inaccuracies within the officers statements, for example, they stated that the keys were in the ignition when the client’s car was keyless. They also alleged that there was smoke coming out of the exhaust when this was an electric car. To challenge this we obtained videos of the car in questions showing the keyless entry system and that smoke would not exit the car in the way described by the police. This is something that the police could not explain in cross examination and meant that the reliability of their whole statement was called into question.

We also obtained the client’s phone records which showed that attempts had been made to contact his parents and obtain entry to the house. This supported our clients version of events.

Our detailed preparation allowed our experienced advocate to robustly cross examine the Police Officer's misleading statements and the court found our client not guilty.

The client was relieved that the case is over and he is not at risk of losing his license.