top of page

PATRICK 

HORAN

DRINK DRIVING SOLICITOR

REPRESENTING PEOPLE IN
DUBLIN & ACROSS IRELAND

winner 2.webp
DIGITAL BUSINESS IRELAND (2) (1).webp
sitting enclosure reading book wide shot (1) (1).webp

Legal

First's

Patrick Horan is a drink driving and road traffic solicitor. He works in courts in Dublin and across Ireland. 

He specialises in cases which carry a mandatory disqualification from driving e.g. Dangerous Driving, Drink Driving, Drug Driving, Hit and Run and No Insurance. ​

Patrick Horan is a former member of An Garda Siochana and worked in that organisation for 10 years (1997-2007).

In February 2022 at Galway District Court Patrick's firm successfully defended a motorist accused of drink driving using the defence of Duress as well as the defence of Necessity.

It was the first-recorded use of both these defences in a drink driving case in Ireland.

 

He represents clients in court right across the country.

He fights every case. 

Can I go to jail for drink driving? Does drink driving go on your record?
02:06

Can I go to jail for drink driving? Does drink driving go on your record?

These are good questions. Can you go to jail for drink driving? That depends on a few factors, but lets make some assumptions. I'm assuming this is your first drink driving offence. Its probably your first ever offence (it is for most people). If its your first offence then the chances of you being imprisoned are very, very low. The only way that this would change is if someone was injured as a result of your drunk driving. Seeing as though this rarely happens, the chances of a prison term are very low for a first offence. Does drink driving go on your record? Yes it does, but it is regarded -by the courts- as "spent" after 7 years. In other words, not to be taken into consideration for any later offences. But as in everything in life there are always exceptions to this rule. If you continue to drink and drive and accumulate a few drink driving convictions, even if those earlier convictions are more than 7 years ago, no court in the country will ignore them if you have been convicted again for the same offence. This is because you are exhibiting a dangerous pattern of behaviour that could at some point -as far as the judge will be concerned- lead to a possible road traffic fatality. And if there's one thing that judges are particularly concerned about, its making sure that (as much as they can) that they are not criticised in the media if they impose a penalty for a repeat drink driver that does not pose a deterrent to future bad behaviour. Judges often have a "maternal" or "paternal" instinct when it comes to the public: they are very concerned to keep the citizens who live in their district safe from threats on the road. So repeated drink drivers are at high risk of jail if they are convicted a second or third time, because this is indicating to a court that you are not learning your lesson. But again the vast majority of people will only ever have been arrested for drink driving once and if convicted they will have a record. But this record would not be enough to prevent you traveling abroad or from taking up a job, unless that job involved you driving as part of it.
Do you have to say anything in court?
01:42

Do you have to say anything in court?

When it comes to drink driving, you rarely ask your client to give evidence. This is becasue your client has been drinking and even though they may honestly believe what they say, we all know that when alcohol is involved it skews or alters accurate recollection. Lets face it, in almost all drink driving cases the police have little difficulty in proving that: (a) you were driving (b) that you were (scientifically) over the limit. But cases are not won just because the police prove both these elements. That's because there is a lot more to prove when it comes to drink driving than just whether you drank and drove. There are other "essential proofs" that a court will require to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And these areas are the ones that you focus on. As to giving evidence, while it rare that you would ask your client to give evidence that doesn't mean that a motorist never gives evidence. There are some circumstances when they might be required to. For instance the police might allege that you were verbally abusive while in custody, something that you might totally disagree with. There are also some occasions when somebody may be slightly over the limit (and therefore have more credibility because they were not badly impaired by alcohol) and recall very clearly something that was said or done by the police that is different to the police's version of events. In these cases giving evidence may be the correct course of action. If every drink driving case resulted in a conviction once the police proved that you were over the limit when you drove, then every motorist prosecuted for drink driving would be convicted. There would be a 100% conviction rate. But there isn't. The conviction rate for drink driving in Ireland from 2020-2023 was 62.25%. That means that 37.74% of motorists prosecuted for drink driving were acquitted. Every one of those 37.74% were over the limit. So 37.74% of motorists were: (a) driving (b) scientifically over the limit But they were acquitted.
How to defend a drink driving charge
02:25

How to defend a drink driving charge

Learning how to get off with drink driving charges may be difficult but is not impossible. Here's a tip: the only thing that matters is what's said in court. What do I mean by this? In every case your lawyer will receive disclosure in the case. Disclosure is the police statements, documentation from the Medical Bureau of Road Safety as well as documents from the postal services, among others. Sometimes you may find that having read the disclosure, nothing 'fatal' to the prosecution case turns up. In other words, the prosecution case appears strong. But the Judge hearing your case wont see the prosecution disclosure. You and your lawyer will but the Judge wont. This is because the disclosure could contain information that is prejudicial to you and in any case, the Judge will make a decision based on an impartial hearing of the evidence. Defending a drink driving charge means knowing what legal 'proofs' the prosecution must establish in court. Then you listen carefully to the evidence that's given in court to see if all of the essential proofs were said in evidence. Experienced lawyers recognise quickly what happens in court for drink driving and prepare accordingly. In many cases they are, but in many cases they are not. Why is this? Giving evidence in court is difficult. The witness box is a pressurized place to be and we humans sometimes make mistakes in these pressurized environments. If that happens you need to be able to understand (your lawyer will know) what should be said in court and -more importantly- what the significance can be if important evidential details are forgotten about or omitted completely. If this happens it can lead to a drink driving case dismissed. These are known as drink driving technicalities
What is the burden of proof in criminal evidence?
01:18

What is the burden of proof in criminal evidence?

Can a judge infer that something happened or was said? In the vast majority of criminal cases they cannot, or rather they should not. Inferences are usually only reserved for civil law cases, where the burden of proof is 'the balance of probabilities' i.e. that it is more likely than not that an event occurred. Inferring something in criminal trials is limited to exceptional instances. This is because the burden of proof, proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt', requires a level of satisfaction on the part of the judge that is approaching certainty. This doesn't mean a judge cant have any doubt. They can, but the doubt must only be a reasonable one. If it is not, if the judge assess the doubt that they may have as more than that -beyond a reasonable doubt- they should acquit. But inferences in criminal law do exist, albeit in very limited circumstances. So if a judge can infer something in road traffic law, when can they do so? There are some examples. Just imagine a person is lying in bed trying to sleep and then they hear a loud bang outside their house. They get up and rush to the window and look out. They see a man slumped over the wheel of a car with smoke rising from the engine. In this scenario, even where the person did not see the accident taking place, the courts have ruled that a judge could infer that the accident had just taken place. While this scenario is helpful, it is unusual. The vast majority of occurrences in a criminal trial are not nearly so clearcut and simple. They often require a judge to assess one part of the evidence or the other. But if the assessment requires inferring that something must have happened (based on the surrounding evidence) caution needs to be maintained.
Map (1).webp

COURT LOCATIONS

Red tags indicate courts where Patrick has appeared.

Follow Me On: 

  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
bottom of page