NEW: I drank after the crash — does that get me off the hook?

Drank After Driving? Why That’s Not the 'Loophole' You Think It Is

Almost certainly not. And not for the reason you think.

Yes, there’s a defence in Irish law known (informally) as the “hip flask” defence.

It does exist.

"Here’s the smarter move:

Don’t rely on stories from idiots who googled

something online

or became a ‘qualified lawyer’ from consulting ChatGPT" 

The idea is that you weren’t over the limit while driving… but only became over the limit after you stopped driving and had a drink.

It could be at home, at the scene, even in shock.

People think it applies if you just say it.

It doesn't.

It's one of those urban myths that unfortunately (or fortunately) collapses on immediate inspection.

Here’s the problem: You have to prove it. Not the Garda. You.

This is one of the few areas in Irish criminal law where the burden switches from the State to you.

You’re the one who must convince the judge that the alcohol after driving is the reason your breath or blood result was high.

And you have to do it from the witness box.

Do you want to give evidence?

I didn’t think so.

Lets assume you do.

It’s a very high bar.

You’ll need:

• A credible timeline

• A forensic or toxicology expert in court to give evidence

• A coherent explanation that doesn’t crumble under cross-examination

• And a judge who believes you.

In my experience?

This almost never works. Judges are used to it. They’ve heard every variation.

If even one detail is off, your credibility is destroyed and the whole case collapses.

"Remember, its easy to give advice.

We can all do that, but you’re the one who

has to go through with it and if it goes wrong

up there in the witness box, you’re on your own.

That ‘friend’ who was giving out free legal advice?

Nowhere to be seen"

So if you're thinking of saying it in court, stop.

At best, it sounds rehearsed.

At worst, it sounds dishonest, and that will hurt you even more.

Remember if a judge thinks you’re lying to them, you’ve got bigger problems to contend with.

One of them is perjury.

If a judge thought that you were telling lies under oath, they could direct a transcript of your evidence (all proceedings are audio recorded) be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider whether you should be prosecuted for giving perjured evidence.

Penalties here include jail.

Remember you'll be cross-examined in the witness box by the prosecution.

As you almost certainly didn't mention any consumption of alcohol after you drove to the Gardai on the night, what do you think the first question you'll be asked in the witness box will be?

"Why didn't you mention the fact that you had drank after you drove to the Garda on the night?

Did it slip your mind?

I have to put it to you that you're telling a pack of lies under oath"

Etc, etc.

Disaster.

Here’s the smarter move: Don’t rely on stories from idiots who googled something online or became a ‘qualified lawyer’ from consulting ChatGPT.  

Lean on the law.

Remember, its easy to give advice. We can all do that, but you’re the one who has to go through with it and if it goes wrong up there in the witness box, you’re on your own.

That ‘friend’ who was giving out free legal advice?

Nowhere to be seen.

The State still has to prove their case.

That’s where most people win, not with explanations, but with strategy.

Because if you're convicted, you're off the road.

So, it’s the choice between going off the road… or driving home.

And everybody wants to drive home.