Drink Driving – Exceed Prescribed Concentration of Alcohol
Three police officers alleged they saw our client enter his motor car and move it approx 2 metres before pulling back into the car park. They then allege that he was in charge of the motor car when they knocked on the car window as they saw the cars keys in the ignition.
He was charged with Drink driving – exceed prescribed level of alcohol.
Our client and his two witnesses denied the circumstances of the offence. Our client gave evidence, supported by his two friends, that he and his friends had driven to the city to attend a bar. After a couple of hours and a few drinks, they decided to leave the bar and make their way home. One of our client’s friends gave evidence that he was the designated driver and that he had driven our client’s car to the city and he intended to drive home and therefore had the car keys with him all evening. The friend did drink and so all three decided to catch a taxi home. They denied driving the car and gave evidence that in fact his friend had remotely unlocked the car and our client entered the front driver’s door only to retrieve his wallet. The keys never left the possession of the friend until the police knocked on the driver’s door and the keys were then placed in the ignition to allow the driver’s window to be wound down.
Our client co-operated with the police, blew into the bag, and accompanied the police to the police station but always maintained his position that he never drove the car.
We represented the client at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court.
Despite three police officers giving evidence that they saw our client driving, the Magistrate was not satisfied that the police had proven their case beyond reasonable doubt and our client was found “not guilty”. Our client recovered all his defence costs from the police.
DISCLAIMER: This is a real case study of an actual case from our files. Details pertaining to the client have been changed to protect their privacy. The sentence imposed and the charge have not been altered. These case studies are published to demonstrate real outcomes and give an indication of possible tariffs in Court. We do not guarantee a similar case on these charges will get the same result. Please note that we post results at our discretion, therefore while many case studies are average results, others are notable for their exceptional outcomes. PUBLISHED 25/02/2013