Refuse Breath Test – Withdrawn

This is a case study on charges of Refuse Breath Test and General Duty of Driver or Person in Charge of Motor Vehicle resulting in a withdrawal of the first charge and a fine for the remaining traffic offence.

What is alleged to have occured?
Our client was subjected to a preliminary breath test after his alleged car was seen running on the road without its head lights on. The police followed the car and ended up finding our client on the driver’s seat of his own car. He was brought to the police station where, allegedly, he refused a third attempt for breath test. This was supported by multiple witnesses present at the station at the time. There were also other witnesses who claim to have seen the car running without the head lights on and followed it to the place where our client was found in the driver’s seat of his car. The preliminary breath test revealed that our client was highly intoxicated and there were other proof found at the scene.

What happened at court?
We represented the client at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on the following charges:

  • Refuse Breath Test
  • General Duty of Driver or Person in Charge of Motor Vehicle
It was highly important for our client not to lose his licence. His employment largely depends on his ability to drive and a loss of licence would mean a loss of income. He was already previously convicted for drink driving and, as such, a finding of guilt for this second offence would mean a loss of licence for 4 years.

During the case conference, we were able to point out inconsistencies in the evidence provided by the police. We had thoroughly reviewed and analysed the brief and found inaccuracies that weakened the prosecution’s confidence in the case. We also briefed Counsel who specialises in the technicalities of refusal of breath tests.

What was the result?
The case went to contest. Ultimately, the police withdrew the charge of Refuse Breath Test a day before the contest. A fine was imposed for the remaining charge but no order was made against our client’s licence.
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 20/03/2020