Mr Howard was prosecuted before Feltham Magistrates Court for an offence of “drink driving” or more properly “driving whilst the proportion of alcohol exceeded the prescribed limit”, an offence contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
Mr. Howard was involved in an accident, which resulted in him being brethalysed at the roadside. He was found to be over the limit, arrested and then taken to the police station. Mr. Howard provided two samples of breath at the police station and both were below 50mg/100 millilitres of breath.
When a breath sample provided is below 50mg/100 millilitres of breath, the Police Officer should inform the driver to provide an alternative sample of blood or urine, but the police officer will decided which. This procedure is governed by section 8(2) of the Road Traffic Act.
This option was offered to Mr. Howard and he exercised his right to provide an alternative sample. The Police Officer decided that the urine sample would be appropriate in the circumstances. Mr. Howard provided two urine samples but was very concerned about how the whole procedure was conducted and how the sample was obtained and also sealed. Mr. Howard stated that the Police Officer was inexperienced and continuously spoke to his superiors when conducting and obtaining the sample of urine.
Mr Howard instructed Caddick Davies Solicitors as Specialist Drink Driving Solicitors London to act on his behalf, as he did not accept that the analysed specimen provided an accurate reflection of his alcohol consumption and thereby the proportion of alcohol in his body.
Mr. Howard entered a not guilty plea to the charge of drink driving at Feltham Magistrates Court. There were a number of issues in the prosecution case and we at Caddick Davies Solicitors continuously applied pressure on the Crown Prosecution Service on disclosure of evidence and rules of admissibility of this evidence. Issues to do with prosecution evidence requires technical expertise and as specialists, we were able to challenge the prosecution on very specific and technical grounds. These proceedings lasted over 4 months and in the end we obtained the result the Crown formally offered no evidence at Court and our client was acquitted of the offence.
Our client was ecstatic with the result and this continues our success in defending charges of drink driving.
If any of the issues raised in this case apply to you or you are charged with any drink driving offence, please contact us to receive specialist advice and representation in this complex area of law.
Caddick Davies Solicitors do not condone offences of drink driving and as a matter of responsibility we discourage this act, however we also believe that every person is innocent until proven guilty and is entitled to the best defence.
Specialist Drink Driving Solicitors London