In a drink driving prosecution, the evidence can seem overwhelming. A positive breath test, a police officer's statement—it is easy to believe that the case is an open-and-shut matter. However, the law demands an incredibly high standard of procedural perfection from the police. The entire case is a chain of evidence, and if a single link in that chain is broken by a procedural error, the whole case can be made to fall apart.
Identifying a potential flaw is only the first step. The real skill of expert drink driving solicitors lies in their ability to take that flaw and transform it into a powerful, persuasive, and winning legal argument in a courtroom. This is where cases are truly won. This guide will explore some of the most common procedural flaws and explain how they are argued in court to achieve an acquittal. At Motoring Defence, we are not just legal advisors; we are expert courtroom advocates.
The Argument: "The Police Station Procedure was Unlawful."
The process of taking an evidential breath sample at a police station is one of the most rigidly controlled procedures in criminal law. The police officer must follow a near-verbatim script of questions and warnings from a document known as the MGDDA.
- The Common Flaw:Under the pressure of a busy custody suite, an officer may miss a key statutory warning, ask a question incorrectly, or fail to follow the sequence of the script. For example, they might fail to properly warn you that a failure to provide a sample is a separate offence.
- The Legal Argument in Court:Your solicitor will argue that these procedural steps are not a mere formality; they are fundamental legal safeguards designed to protect the rights of the suspect. They will cite established case law which states that a significant failure to follow the correct procedure means the breath sample was obtained unlawfully. If the sample was obtained unlawfully, it is inadmissible as evidence. Without the breath reading evidence, the prosecution has no case, and the court must find you not guilty.
The Argument: "The Blood or Urine Sample Evidence is Unreliable."
If the police take a sample of blood or urine instead of breath, a different but equally strict set of procedures applies.
- The Common Flaw:A frequent error is the police's failure to offer you a portion of your own blood or urine sample to allow you to have it independently analysed by your own expert. Another common flaw is a break in the "chain of custody," where the sample is not sealed, stored, or transported to the lab in the correct manner.
- The Legal Argument in Court:Expert drink driving solicitors will argue that these procedures are essential to guarantee the scientific integrity and reliability of the evidence. A failure to offer you your own sample removes your ability to independently verify the prosecution's key evidence. A break in the chain of custody means the sample could have been contaminated or degraded. In either case, the solicitor will argue that the final lab result is unsafe to rely upon, and the court should exclude it from the evidence, leading to an acquittal.
The Argument: "There are Special Reasons Not to Disqualify."
Sometimes, the evidence is perfect, and the driver is technically guilty. But the fight is not over. The law allows for a special plea to avoid the mandatory 12-month ban.
- The Scenario:The driver is guilty of the offence, but their reason for driving was a genuine and dire emergency. For example, they may have driven a very short distance to escape an immediate threat of serious violence or to respond to a life-or-death medical crisis.
- The Legal Argument in Court:This is a highly nuanced argument where your solicitor is not arguing your innocence, but is making a powerful plea for the court to exercise its discretion. They will present compelling evidence of the emergency (e.g., 999 call logs, witness testimony, medical reports) and argue that the specific, extenuating circumstances are so closely connected to the offence that it would be unjust to impose the mandatory disqualification. Winning a "special reasons" argument requires the highest level of persuasive advocacy.
Your Courtroom Advocate: The Motoring Defence Team
Identifying a procedural flaw is one thing. Having the legal knowledge, experience, and advocacy skill to argue it persuasively before a District Judge or a bench of magistrates is another. At Motoring Defence, our team of specialist drink driving solicitors are, first and foremost, expert courtroom advocates.
- We are masters of the MGDDA procedure and the extensive case law that governs it.
- We know how to translate a technical flaw into a powerful legal argument that leads to an acquittal.
- We have a formidable track record of winning "special reasons" arguments and saving our clients' licences.
A Defence Built on Legal Precision
A drink driving charge is a highly technical and procedural matter. A successful defence is built on the precise application of the law to the specific facts of your case. An expert solicitor is the only person who can effectively make these arguments and hold the prosecution to the high standard of proof the law demands.
If you are facing a drink driving charge, do not assume the case is lost. Contact Motoring Defence for an expert review of the procedure in your case.