I wrote a few weeks back about a friend who was breathalysed at Christmas, and decided to run a Special Reasons argument that would allow the court not to disqualify him if the Bench agreed.
Well, he kept his licence, with six points, and a fine in the low hundreds plus costs. He was impressed by the performance of the solicitor I recommended and is a happy boy.
I think that justice was done. and the system worked as it should.
Personally, I don't believe anyone who is caught over the drink-drive limit should keep their licence. Cars are a lethal weapon especially in the hands of drivers impaired through drink or drugs. Everyone knows the risks. If you don't want the punishment, don't break the law, no compromise. We are far too soft. You can't break the law then claim it's going to affect your life! You should have thought of that before you did what you did.
ReplyDeleteSpecial reasons isn't arguing exceptional hardship. It is saying there is some legitimate explanation why you broke the law - relating to the circumstances of the offence. I don't know what argument was run here - its quite difficult with drink driving - but there are cases where it can apply.
DeletePeople often confuse exceptional hardship with special reasons; the former applies to totting up disqualifications.
ReplyDeleteIt would be helpful to us all if you stated just what the Special Reasons were. I had one where the defendant's wife had gone into premature labour on Christmas night and was told no ambulance would be available for at least two hours, and no taxis were available so he took the decision to drive her to the local hospital. It was there that a PC smelt alcohol on his breath, asked if he had been driving and found that he was just over the legal limit. The bench took the view that this was a genuine emergency, and similarly let him keep his licence and loaded him with six points.
ReplyDeleteShortness of distance driven. see chatters-v-burke
DeleteOr even DPP v Bristow 1996!
DeleteI would be minded to plead not guilty by reason of necessity or "duress of circumstance" in the case of an emergency dash to A&E. Only guilty people need to think of special reasons why they should not be disqualified.
Delete(Also, if a PC asks if you have been driving a response of "No comment" is available to you. Unless a PC has reason to believe a person has been driving he has no power to require a breath test.)
Necessity - good luck with that defence.
DeleteIn any case, driving or attempting to drive with excess alcohol is a strict liability offence with no mens rea required (the same is true for speeding). Guilt is established merely by evidence of the prescribed level of alcohol. Thus it is necessary to plead Special Reasons not to disqualify.
Good luck as well in seeking to argue that a police officer does not have reason to question whether D has been driving when the latter is sitting in the driving seat or has been observed leaving it.