DRINK DRIVING SOLICITOR

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.

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.

Are the use of handcuffs during an arrest for drink driving unlawful? No. Not at all. This had caused some confusion a number of years ago but the question was settled by Judge Dunne in the Supreme Court case of Pires, Corrigan and Gannon in 2019. This case dealt with three separate cases where handcuffs had been used in the course of an arrest for drink driving. In the Supreme Court Judge Dunne said that a Garda is "fully entitled to and may well be obliged to apply handcuffs to an arrested person, where he or she genuinely believes that it is necessary to do so in the particular case" Judge Dunne said that the courts should be "slow to review decisions of Garda officers in the wide range of situations with which they are confronted in the course of their duty..." He advised courts that they "should avoid the use of hindsight to come to a view that the...Garda concerned should have taken a different course". Judge Dunne concluded with these words: "One has to allow a measure of latitude to the Gardai". So, the use of handcuffs will generally be acceptable to the courts, but not in every case.

We were very lucky here but it's an example of working hard to ensure that every aspect of a case is properly examined. Every successful prosecution contains multiple procedural legal steps that must be proven by the prosecution. Once you know what each one of those steps are, you know what has to be proven at each step. You also know that if there is an error in one or more of these steps it can lead to a drink driving case being dismissed. Some may call this a drink driving technicality or they may more commonly be referred to in this country as drink driving technicalities Ireland but they can make the difference between a successful prosecution case and a drink driving case dismissed.

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

No. They cant, or at least won't, unless the case is catastrophically flawed and incapable of succeeding at trial. Where the State realise that major legal errors in a case exist they will often very pragmatically and sensibly decide to withdraw the case. This isn't spoken about very often but the reason why the courts in this country operate so well, even smoothly, is often because of the pragmatism and common sense shown by the State. In my experience, while they take their jobs seriously and will prosecute cases as best they can, they do not -unlike their counterparts in some other countries- move 'heaven and earth' to 'bring home a prosecution', no matter what. Such restraint and, in many cases, decency, is not often commented upon or given credit. But it should be.

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.