Offence: Driving without a valid Certificate of Insurance, Failing to Provide a Specimen of Blood for Analysis

Defence: Reasonable Excuse for not providing a specimen of blood – police mistake in relation to the no insurance matter

Carl Millar was instructed by Mr S who faced disqualification for a period of between 1-3 years for failing to provide a specimen of blood for analysis.

Simply put, the case should never have been brought before the Court.  Mr S was seriously injured following a car accident and was not in a position to provide a sample of blood to the police at the hospital.  He was heavily sedated and was unsure where he actually was.  Eventually, the Crown Prosecution Service accepted this position and discontinued proceedings against Mr S for failing to provide a specimen of blood for analysis.

Regarding the driving without a valid certificate of insurance matter, the Crown Prosecution Service accepted that Mr S did have a trade policy.  However, they would not discontinue proceedings until the matter got to trial.  At trial, our barrister persuaded the prosecutor to discontinue proceedings against Mr S and he received a full Defendants Costs Order, meaning that he would receive some of the fees back that he had paid for his defence.  Another fantastic result for Millars Solicitors.

Offence: Failing to Provide a Specimen of Breath – not guilty plea

Defence: Technical Defence

Carl Millar represented Mr S who was charged with the offence of failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis.

Carl Millar spotted a technical defence in the case.  Mr S was required to provide two specimens of breath at the police station in the usual way.  Mr S did comply with the requirement, but the breath test device detected mouth alcohol.  In those circumstances, the device is unreliable and the correct procedure is to move on to a requirement for a sample of blood or urine.  The police officer made a simple mistake and simply charged the defendant with failing to provide a specimen.  This was incorrect and the police officer should have required Mr S to provide a sample of blood or urine.

Given the shortcomings in the prosecution case, the prosecutor accepted that there was no reasonable prospects of success and agreed to discontinue the case against Mr S.

Mr S will also receive reimbursement for the fees incurred in respect of his defence.

Offence: Failing to Provide a Specimen of Breath for Analysis – Guilty Plea

Defence: Mitigation

Carl Millar from Messrs Millars Solicitors was instructed by Mr T who faced disqualification for a minimum period of one year and up to 3 years.  The Magistrates Court Sentencing Guidelines also suggest the imposition of a community order whereby there is a deliberate failure to provide a specimen of breath.

Mr T’s case was compounded by the fact that his roadside breath test was at a reading of 101µg of alcohol in 100ml of breath.  If he had provided a specimen of breath at the police station then he would have faced disqualification of between 23-28 months and he almost certainly would have received a community order as well.

Mr T had powerful mitigation that was advanced at Court.  The main concern was that if any period of disqualification was imposed then he may lose his livelihood as a chef working unsociable hours.  It would also have set him up to fail if a community order was imposed because of the shift pattern that he was required to work.  The Magistrates accepted the powerful mitigation advanced at Court and imposed the minimum period of disqualification of 12 months.  He was also offered the Drink Drivers Rehabilitation Course which effectively reduced his driving disqualification down to a period of 9 months.

Offence: Failing to Provide a Specimen of Breath for Analysis

Defence: Reasonable Excuse for Failing to Provide a Specimen of Breath

Carl Millar represented Ms G in relation to an allegation of failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis.

Ms G had historical mental health issues including depression, which manifested itself in the form of panic and anxiety attacks.  Ms G was required to provide a sample of breath at the police station.  Despite her best efforts, she was unable to provide a specimen.  In evidence at the trial, the police officer conducting the procedure conceded that, “she did appear to try her very best”.  A half-time submission was submitted by Carl Millar at the trial whereby the Justices concurred that there was no case to answer even taking the prosecution’s case at its highest.

The defendant was acquitted and a defendants costs order was granted whereby she will receive reimbursement of some of the fees incurred for instructing Millars Solicitors.

(A half-time submission is whereby the defence solicitors are of the view that there is not enough evidence purely based on the prosecution evidence to take the case forward.  In Ms G’s case, it was pivotal to the case that the police officer conceded that the defendant tried her very best to provide a specimen of breath.  This was obviously helped by the fact that we had obtained an independent psychiatric report which confirmed that it was at last possible that Ms G could not provide a specimen of breath in the circumstances of having a panic or anxiety attack.  It is absolutely essential in all these cases to obtain an independent psychiatric report to support the case).

Offence: Failing to Provide a Specimen of Breath for Analysis

Defence: Technical Defence

Mr O was charged with an offence of failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis.

Millars Solicitors were able to persuade the Crown Prosecution Service that Mr O had been incorrectly charged, and the offence should have been one of failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis whilst in charge of a motor vehicle, rather than driving a motor vehicle. The Crown Prosecution Service accepted the argument and the charge was changed to reflect the lesser offence.

We managed to persuade the Court to impose 10 penalty points on Mr O’s driving licence instead of a driving disqualification. Naturally Mr O was delighted with the outcome as he faced a minimum period of disqualification of one year, up to a maximum of 3 years.

Offence: Failing to Provide a Specimen of Breath for Analysis

Defence: Reasonable Excuse for not providing a specimen of breath, namely panic attacks and asthma and technical defence

Messrs Millars Solicitors trading as Keep My Driving Licence represented Mr P before Horsham Magistrates Court.

At trial, the Crown had difficulties with their witnesses as one was not in attendance at Court and could not be contacted. Furthermore, the CCTV footage had no audio and there was a lack of disclosure served by the Crown. Due to the lack of the prosecution witness, the Crown explained to the Court that they could not proceed without the matter being put back. The Crown made an application to adjourn the case which was rigorously opposed by Messrs Millars Solicitors. The Court refused the application for an adjournment and, in the circumstances, the Crown offered no evidence. A defendants costs order was granted to the defendant, which means that we will be able to reimburse some of his fees paid. Naturally, Mr P was delighted with the outcome.

Offence: Failure to provide

Defence: The Crown had not complied with the disclosure rules

Millars Solicitors represented Miss C before Stockport Magistrates Court on 4^th January 2019.  Miss C was charged with failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis.  We successfully persuaded the Court that her final reply on the prescribed MGDDA form was meant as an agreement to comply and not a refusal.  The Crown Prosecution Service had not provided relevant disclosure that had been requested.  At trial, the Judge accepted that the Crown had not complied with the disclosure rules and the case against Miss C was dismissed and she was therefore not disqualified at all from driving.

If you would like advice call our expert team now on 0800 999 5535 or submit your case here