Customise Consent Preferences

We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.

The cookies that are categorised as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site.... 

Always Active

Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.

Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.

No cookies to display.

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

No cookies to display.

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

No cookies to display.

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customized advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyze the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.

No cookies to display.

London | Manchester | Leeds | Bristol | Birmingham | Nationwide
carl-millar-keep-my-driving-licence

Latest Victory

Place:Staines Magistrates Court

Offence:Drunk in Charge of a Motor Vehicle

Defence:No likelihood of driving whilst over the prescribed legal limit in alcohol

Carl Millar was instructed by Mr F who was charged with being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle.
Mr F had a high reading in alcohol and he therefore faced disqualification.

Millars Solicitors instructed a forensic expert to calculate what Mr F’s alcohol reading would have
been at the time he claimed he would have driven the vehicle. The reading would have been at zero
alcohol if the Court accepted Mr F’s evidence that he would not have driven his vehicle whilst he
remained over the prescribed legal limit.

The case was complicated by the fact that the Crown Prosecution Service tried to adduce bodycam
footage on the day of the trial that had never been disclosed to the defence and was not part of the
unused schedule of material. The unused schedule of material is a formal document that must be
served in good time upon the defence by the Crown Prosecution Service. The Crown were in
difficulties as they had not complied with the disclosure requirements and they agreed to
discontinue the case against the defendant on the day of the trial.

 

From Our Clients