AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

NONE FOR THE ROAD

7th December 2006
Page 42
Page 44
Page 43
Page 42, 7th December 2006 — NONE FOR THE ROAD
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Drink-driving law is more complex than some think. We all know it is dangerous to drink and drive, but as the festive season approaches it is worth being reminded of the legal consequences too. Transport lawyer Tim Ridyard reports.

The approach of Christmas is a good time for operators to review their procedures to ensure the misuse of alcohol and other substances is correctly managed— and for drivers to remind themselves of the perils of falling foul of the law. As well as a court appearance, offences lead to disciplinary hearings before Traffic Commissioners.

Drivers facing court appearances sometimes to go to extreme lengths, being represented by 'celebrity' solicitors or barristers and incurring vast legal costs, if there is a possibility of keeping their licences.

As the panel shows, a number of offences may be committed through unfitness to drive through drink or drugs, but in essence there are two main of fences:driving/attempting to drive while unfit;and driving/attempting to drive with excess alcohol.

The first of these covers not only excess alcohol but unfitness for other reasons, including impairment through drugs.Both offences carry a mandatory disqualification of at least 12 months; the worse the impairment, the longer the disqualification.

A second conviction within 10 years carries a minimum three-year ban.

The courts now offers driver a 'discount' on their disqualification period of up to 25% in return for agreeing to take in a drink-drive rehabilitation course.

'1n charge' offences are committed where there is no evidence of the vehicle being driven, or that the offender was attempting to drive it, but where the offender is in control'. This means sitting in the vehicle, possessing a key for the ignition. or merely being near the vehicle.

A good example would be a drunk driver asleep at the wheel of a car. However, it is an 'absolute' defence (which means the court has to accept it) if the driver can show there was no likelihood of him driving the vehicle while unfit.

It is rare for truck drivers to be prosecuted for in charge' offences once they have parked up for the night because the presence of a bunk in the cab shows that the intention was to have a night's sleep. However, caution should be exercised—the mere fact that someone has had a drink could put them in a situation where the police might ask questions.

Risk of disqualification

'In charge' offences do not carry mandatory disqualifications, although in practice the magistrates often use their discretionary powers to disqualify.

The police investigation usually starts with an officer assessing the fitness of a driver who is believed to be under the influence of drink or drugs.The driver must co-operate with the roadside procedure, i ncludi ng blowing into an alcohol screening device. Failure to do so is an offence,though it does not carry a mandatory disqualification.

At the roadside, as at the police station,it is vital for a driver to co-operate fully with the police as reluctance to do so may lead a court to infer that he was indeed under the influence. If the roadside breath test suggests excess alcohol, or if the police officer simply believes the subject is unfit, the driver will be arrested and taken to the police station.

In cases of suspected drink ing,samples will be required for the Lion Intoximeter machine at the police station and the driver will be questioned by police officers who will fill in a booklet with details of alcohol or medications consumed. It is critical that the driver answers carefully because if charges are to be contested, the information must be correct and consistent.

Failure to comply with the procedure at the police station will lead to charges of failing to co-operate and/or provide specimens of breath.

If a specimen of breath shows more than the legal limit of 35mg of alcohol per 100m1 of breath but does not exceed 50mg per 100m1, the driver should be given an option to provide a blood or urine sample. at the discretion of the police. However, requests for urine samples are becoming increasingly rare.

If given such an option, it is difficult to see why a driver would not provide a blood sample; the alternative is prosecution.The delay in waiting for a police surgeon to attend the police station to take a blood sample, and a small amount of alcohol automatically excluded from the final result by the laboratory, m ay mean that the alcohol reading is lower than the equivalent breath reading given at the police station.

This could make the difference between being prosecuted or not.

Almost every conceivable point in the procedure from roadside to the police station has been and continues to be challenged in court. Unless there is a crown court or high court appeal, all these matters are dealt with in the magistrate's court where justices may have little sympathy with drivers who mount technical defences.

Private areas

Drivers also need to be careful when assuming that they cannot be prosecuted because they are driving on or are parked on areas they regard as private. Do not assume that the words "private road" equates to good defence. The definition of a road to which the public has access depends on a number of factors including exclusivity of use.

At a recent case involving a truck driver who had driven a vehicle off a ferry into a holding area, the Harwich magistrates would not accept that the area in question was a private area for the purpose of the law.They convicted and disqualified the driver.

It is sometimes possible to persuade a court not to impose the normal penalty of disqualification. It might be that there is something peculiar about the case,such as an extremely short distance driven in circumstances where there is little or no risk of coming into contact with the public. In such cases the magistrates might reduce the normal disqualification or endorse the offender's licence with three toll penalty points..

• Tim Ridyard is a solicitor and partnered Ipswich-based Barker Gotelee Solicitors, specialists in mad transport law. THE OFFENCES

A number of offences may be committed through unfitness to drive through rink or drugs. Here we outline the crimesand the punishments.

OFFENCE MAXIMUM MAXIMUM FINE DISQUAIJFICATION PENALTY POINTS IMPRISONMENT Driving or 6 months £5,000 Obligatory 3-11 in special attempting to circumstances drive while unfit Driving or attempting to drive with excess alcohol 6 months £5,000 Obligatory 3-11 in special circumstances In charge while 3 months £2,500 Discretionary 10 unless unfit disqualification In charge with excess alcohol 3 months £2.500 Discretionary 10 unless disqualification Failing to provide None £1.000 Discretionary 4 unless roadside breath test disqualification Failing or refusing to supply specimens when driving or attempting to drive 6 months £5.000 Obligatory 3-11 in special (guidelines suggest circumstances a minimum ol 18 months) Failing or refusing to provide specimens at the police station in other cases (eg in charge' cases) 3 months £2,500 Discretionary 10 unless disqualification

Tags

Organisations: UN Court
People: Tim Ridyard
Locations: Ipswich

comments powered by Disqus