DH Drink Driving and legal representation

[HoneywithLemon]

DH crashed and wrote off the car last week. He had been drinking in the early evening and was found to be just over the limit (143 and 144 were his readings at the police station).

He is looking at getting legal representation in court. I was wondering (a) how much he might expect to pay and (b) whether he needs a barrister or will a solicitor suffice?

He's had some quotes, the lowest of which was £600 and the highest £1000 (the latter with barrister, not sure about the others).

He can expect a ban of at least a year (reduced to 9 months if he attends a DD awareness course), and a fine, but the accident (which involved no one else, thank goodness) is an "aggravating factor" which may increase the severity of his sentence.

I think the OP's anger at her husband is palpable.

Please do get a solicitor to represent your DH. A solicitor can prevent your husband losing his licence if it is a first DD offence and loss of his licence will mean loss of his work as a self employed person. This is one factor that does stop magistrates from automatically banning drivers.

£600-£1000 sounds about right but you need to know who will represent your husband at court on the day -will the fee be higher if the solicitors recommend a barrister?

Most of these firms do not do a free 30 minutes as they aren't legally aided. However a criminal firm may be able to cover this at a cheaper rate and be able to give you some free time. Firms that solely deal in road traffic have more experience with legal loopholes but won't be as cheap.

In drink driving cases the magistrates have no discretion over the ban, whether it causes hardship or not. I would save your money. He needs to apologise and not make excuses. He doesn't need a lawyer for that.

Even if he's self employed doesn't he have to go to the office sometime?

So sorry for you and the impact on your family

Psycho there is no discretion now it is immediate ban.

Love how the OP is trying to compare the lasting effects on her family due to a temporary ban and poor reluctantlandlord truly tragic situation.

Finds smallest fucking violin.

I think you have to have a defence, as in you didn't do it, or special reasons, such as rushing someone to hospital, to have even a remote hope of avoiding a ban.

The OP clearly accepts that there will be a ban and a fine. She is asking about adequate legal representation.

I am also magistrate and Wilding has expressed it very well. The magistrates do have discretion over then length of the ban, but its imposition is mandatory for this offence - that is to say, he has to be disqualified. As there was an accident this will be looked at as an aggravating factor so he may receive a ban somewhat longer than twelve months but I would expect 18 months as the worst case scenario. Fine is based on means. Unfortunately for you the Criminal Courts Charge came in on 13 April and if his offence date is after that then he will have a large charge to pay on top of any fine and costs. He will have to declare his income. I would never say don't get representation as it is a matter for him/you, but we have many many unrepresented defendants in court and there is a duty on the magistrates to make sure that he is fully able to explain himself and to put whatever mitigation he needs to. So either way would be fine.

I feel for you OP as you've done nothing wrong and you must be torn between wanting to harpoon the stupid fucker and protect your family.

That Nick freeman fella - mr loophole I think he was nicknamed - was often in the papers for "getting celebs off" on technicalities. No idea how much he'd charge though. I always used to think that hiring him would surely be counter productive as it would imply a "get me off with it" frame of mind rather than contrition.

It really was a matter of luck no one died, but you know that, and Presumably your husband will never do anything so bloody stupid again. I hope you and your little ones are not too badly affected by his stupidity.

But that's why her husband does need a solicitor - if the offence was before the 13th then the ban isn't mandatory and is down to magistrates discretion.

Please still seek legal advice - even if a ban is mandatory there will be advice on keeping the ban to the minimum statutory requirement.

Ps. Nick Freedman charges £2000 just for an appointment - many other specialists do it for a lot less than this.

Incidentally, please ignore the post re 'technicalities' . The court system is well used to such 'specialist' representation and generally it just lands the defendant with a stonking bill as well as a conviction. If a not guilty plea is entered in our area the usual procedure is to list the case in front of a District Judge just to make sure that playing hardball happens on both sides. My advice would be never to bother.

Psychopath you are totally incorrect. Assuming the OP is in England, disqualification is mandatory for the offence of drink driving. You are however correct that mitigation may ensure that the ban is the statutory minimum for this excess breath alcohol reading, but as I have said, the magistrates have a duty to explore this whether or not he is represented: unrepresented defendants should not be prejudiced by not being able to afford a solicitor for this kind of offence. The date of 13th April refers only to the date the requirement for courts to impose the Criminal Courts Charge on top of costs and Victim Surcharge came into effect.

The OP has said her husband will be pleading guilty.

Psycho, the 13th April refers to the new Criminal Courts Charge, not the driving ban. As BCBG said, the ban is mandatory, only the length is at the bench's discretion. There are occasions where disqualification can be argued against on the basis of exceptional hardship (eg points totting) but drink driving is not one of them.

X-post there!

Think

I am sorry if I might have come across as trying to excuse or minimise his actions. I wasn't. I just wanted to give the full circumstances. I wanted to keep it factual as I know of old what a difficult environment these forums can be. Obviously I failed. I appreciate people have strong feelings on this subject.

We expect a ban and a fine. I wanted a legal perspective on how the guidance works in real life so I can prepare myself. I have learned a lot about the sanctions for drink driving over the past few days and am still learning. I have to look after myself and this is one way of doing it, coming here and asking for advice. I am not the offender, and I'm not asking for him to have any sort of special treatment. Like you all, I hope that DH fully owns the consequences of his actions, but that's only something he can do. I just want practical advice, that's all, and thank you to all who have provided it and appreciate my situation.

I am furious at DH. He is very, very sorry and ashamed. We both appreciate how difficult and shameful it will be telling family, friends and work colleagues, all of which is yet to come. He will not take any of this lightly nor will be forgetting it in a hurry. I think he feels lucky I haven't left to be honest. I feel a lot of shame second-hand myself, as well as anger towards him and a fair amount of resentment. I had to tell the DC too. That was fun.

Thanks again to everyone who helped.

As a self-employed contractor, OP, he isn't employed by the place 60 miles away. There's no reason for him to tell the court which customer site he currently works on. Although there's no obvious connection, he should check his indemnity insurance - I have a feeling it asks about criminal convictions and the best case may be a hike in premium to stay insured to work. It sounds like his ability to get to the office could be compromised and he really should let them know.

Do you have legal cover with your household insurance?

I hope you will be leaving the telling of friends, family, colleagues and neighbours to him, by the way. Arming yourself with knowledge here is one thing, but sorting this out for him in real life is quite another.

Poor you and the DCs.

Agree absolutely he should be telling people. He should have told the Dcs really, himself.

I sympathise with you, as I said earlier you and the DCs are being punished too, for his action.

OP. I am sorry if you felt I was blaming you. I wasn't. I just need people to understand that it isn't ok or minor just because he was lucky enough not to kill someone. It is horrific, dangerous and one of the most selfish actions possible.

Women leave their partners for voluntarily putting themselves in a position where sex with someone else is probable yet voluntarily putting themselves in a position where killing someone else is probable seems a lesser offence.

I just want people to understand the utter devastation such selfish actions cause.