Top 10 Defences Used by Expert Solicitors in Drink or Drug Driving Cases

If you have been caught driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, the consequences of a conviction can be severe, including losing your license, hefty fines, and even imprisonment. However, expert solicitors employ several defences to help their clients in such cases. In this article, we will discuss the top defences used by expert solicitors in drink driving or drug driving cases.

1) Challenging the Validity of the Breathalyser Test

The most common method of testing for drink driving is the breathalyser test. However, these tests can be subject to errors, and solicitors can challenge their validity by examining the procedure used, the equipment used, and the training of the officer administering the test.

In court, the solicitor may argue that the breathalyser test was not conducted correctly or that the equipment used was faulty, which would call into question the accuracy of the test. The solicitor may also request the maintenance records of the device to determine if it was in proper working order.

2) Contesting the Field Sobriety Tests

In the UK, the police use a variety of methods to determine whether a driver is impaired, including Field Sobriety Tests. While these tests are widely used, they can be unreliable, and solicitors can challenge their validity by examining the procedure used and the training of the officer conducting the test.

What are Field Sobriety Tests?

Field Sobriety Tests are physical and cognitive tests used by police officers to assess a driver’s level of impairment. These tests measure a driver’s balance and coordination, ability to follow instructions, and reaction time. However, the results of these tests can be affected by a range of factors, such as anxiety, fatigue, and physical limitations. As such, Field Sobriety Tests may not provide a reliable indicator of a driver’s level of impairment.

Challenging the Validity of Field Sobriety Tests

It is important to note that Field Sobriety Tests are not the only basis for charging an individual with drink or drug driving. The police may also use other evidence, such as the results of a breathalyser or blood test, observations of the driver’s behaviour, and witness statements to support their case. However, if a solicitor can challenge the validity of the Field Sobriety Test, it may weaken the prosecution’s case.

A solicitor may challenge the validity of the Field Sobriety Test by examining the procedure used and the training of the officer conducting the test. If the test was not conducted correctly or if the officer was not properly trained to administer the test, it may not provide a reliable indicator of the driver’s level of impairment. Other factors, such as poor lighting or uneven terrain, may also affect the driver’s performance on the test and can be used as a defence.

Legal Limits for Blood Alcohol Content and Drug Levels

It is important for drivers to be aware of the legal limits for blood alcohol content and drug levels in the UK. In England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, the legal limit for blood alcohol content is 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood, while in Scotland, the limit is 50mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood. There are also legal limits for a range of drugs, including cannabis, cocaine, and MDMA. If a driver exceeds these limits, they may face criminal charges.

4) Contesting the Stop

A police officer must have a valid reason to stop a driver. If the officer does not have a valid reason, then any evidence obtained after the stop may be inadmissible in court. Solicitors can challenge the stop by examining the circumstances that led to it.

In court, the solicitor may argue that the stop was not valid, and any evidence obtained after the stop should be excluded. The solicitor may also argue that the officer did not have probable cause to believe that the driver was impaired.

5) Contesting the Blood or Urine Test

Blood or urine tests are used to determine whether a driver is impaired by drugs or alcohol. However, these tests can be subject to errors, and solicitors can challenge their validity by examining the procedure used, the equipment used, and the training of the officer administering the test.

In court, the solicitor may argue that the blood or urine test was not conducted correctly or that the equipment used was faulty, which would call into question the accuracy of the test. The solicitor may also request the maintenance records of the device to determine if it was in proper working order.

6) Arguing for Exceptional Hardship

If a driver is facing a mandatory driving ban, their solicitor may argue that the ban would cause exceptional hardship to their client or others. This may be a valid defence in cases where the driver relies on their vehicle for work or to care for dependents.

In court, the solicitor may argue that the mandatory driving ban would cause exceptional hardship to their client or others. They may present evidence, such as employment contracts, to support their argument.

7) Technical Defences Used in Drink or Drug Driving Cases

Certainly, in addition to the defences mentioned above, expert solicitors can also use technical defences in drink or drug driving cases. These defences involve examining the forensic evidence and the opinions of experts in the field.

8) Contesting Forensic Evidence

Forensic evidence such as blood and urine tests can be challenged by expert solicitors. The solicitor may argue that the test results are inaccurate or that the testing procedures were flawed. They may also examine the handling of the samples to ensure that they were not contaminated or mishandled.

In court, the solicitor may call upon their own forensic expert to challenge the prosecution’s evidence. The expert may testify to the limitations of the testing methods used or may point out errors in the testing procedures. They may also present their own test results to dispute the prosecution’s evidence.

9) Use of Expert Opinion Defence:

Expert opinion can also be used by solicitors to challenge the prosecution’s evidence. The solicitor may call upon an expert witness in the field of toxicology or forensic science to provide an opinion on the accuracy of the tests conducted.

In court, the expert witness may provide testimony on the limitations of the testing methods used, the accuracy of the results obtained, and the validity of the testing procedures. Their opinion may be used to cast doubt on the prosecution’s evidence or to support the defence’s case.

10) Procedural defence

is a legal defence that involves arguing that law enforcement officers did not follow proper procedures during an arrest or testing process. This defence can result in a case being dismissed or charges reduced.

There are several ways that procedural defence can be used in drink or drug driving cases:

• Failure to follow proper procedures: The police must follow specific procedures when conducting roadside tests, breathalyser tests, or blood and urine tests. If they fail to do so correctly, any evidence gathered may be deemed inadmissible in court, and the case may be dismissed.

• Challenging the grounds for arrest: The police must have reasonable grounds to arrest someone suspected of drink or drug driving. If they did not have a valid reason to do so, any evidence gathered during the arrest or subsequent testing may be deemed inadmissible in court.

• Challenging the police officer’s observations: In cases where the police officer observed the individual’s behaviour, they may be required to provide evidence of the observations made. If the officer’s observations are inaccurate or cannot be substantiated, the defence may use this to challenge the prosecution’s case.

• Timing and notification issues: The police must inform the suspect of their rights and obligations, such as the right to remain silent and the right to legal representation. If they fail to do so or inform them too late, any evidence gathered may be deemed inadmissible in court.

By using these procedural defences, expert solicitors may be able to challenge the prosecution’s case and strengthen the defence’s position in court. This can lead to a more favourable outcome for their client, such as having the case dismissed or charges reduced.