NOT ALL DRINK DRIVING ENDS IN LOSS OF LICENCE

Barwick Boitano Lawyers recently represented a lady who had been charged with “Drink Driving” having a reading of .05.  

Wendy was pulled over at a random breath test at about 9.00pm whilst traveling down Victoria Road after having been with her work friends having a few drinks.  

She had actually only consumed two standard glasses of red wine but unfortunately had not had anything to eat.  

She was actually on her way to McDonalds to grab a quick bite before heading home.  

Wendy was breathalised at the side of the road and the initial breathe reading found her to have alcohol in her system and she was conveyed to the local Police Station where she was breathalised and blew a reading of .05 (low range).  

This was the first time anything like this had ever happened to Wendy.  She was scared and embarrassed.  She believed she had done everything right and that two glasses of red wine were not enough to put her anywhere near the limit.  

She was a commercial traveller and her licence was a necessary part of her employment.  Although she had not been in the country that long (having recently come over from New Zealand) to find work.  If she were to lose her licence she would also lose her livelihood!  

She consulted Barwick Boitano Lawyersand at Burwood Local Court we were able to convince the Magistrate of her good driving record, her employment and need to drive, her character and her remorse.  As such the Magistrate whilst finding the offence proven, dismissed the charge under Section 10 and she was free to go with no conviction having been recorded any loss of licence.

and NO LOSS OF LICENCE!

SECOND OFFENCE – HIGH RANGE PCA – CAN STILL AVOID HARSH SENTENCES.  

Charlie came to us a few years ago after having already been involved in a previous “drink driving” offence.  

He had been convicted and lost his licence for three months.  

This time Charlie had been caught asleep at the wheel in a car, which wasn’t owned, by him and that had climbed the gutter and crashed.  

The Police when they attended the scene smelt alcohol on him and breathalised him.  

He was found to have a reading of .165 well into the high range and this being his second offence with aggravating circumstances and the guideline judgment he was seriously looking at a term of imprisonment.  

Charlie came to Barwick Boitano Lawyers seeking expert representation.  

He was clearly sorry for what he had done and deeply regretted his actions.  

He was attending counseling and had significantly reduced his social alcohol intake.  

Barwick Boitano Lawyers found some loopholes in the Police Facts, in particular the time of the accident and the time that he was breathe tested.  It seemed that he was breath tested outside the statutory two-hour limit and as such the certificate could not be tended into Court.  

The Police tried to introduce a backup charge of “Driving Under the Influence.”  However this was subsequently dismissed under the “double jeopardy” provisions.  

Charlie then had a choice.  He could run the case on the issue and take a chance at being able to convince the Magistrate that he wasn’t drunk at the time of driving or he could take the advice of his lawyers and plead “guilty” but hope for a reduced sentence.  

Charlie did that.  He pleaded “guilty.”  He went off to a Traffic Offenders Program and on his return for sentencing the Magistrate took into account what he had done and the plea of “guilty.”  

Barwick Boitano Lawyers were able to convince the Magistrate that gaol would not be appropriate and he was convicted of “high range drink driving” and fined the sum of $700.00 and disqualified from driving for a period twenty four months (the minimum) and backed to start from the date of the original offence.  

This was a remarkable result in the circumstances having regard to the fact of the guideline judgment specifically stated that for a second offence for a “high range PCA” it carried with it a two year gaol term, a maximum fine of $3,300.00 and an automatic disqualification of licence for five years.  

Barwick Boitano were able to delay the determination of the case so that it was ultimately decided the second conviction was entered after the five-year period and as such he was treated as a first offence.  

Without the intervention of Barwick Boitano Lawyers, Charlie would surely have lost his licence for at least two years and may well have spent a period doping Community Service and/or gaol time.