Drink Driving Charge - Solicitor recommendation

niamh6426

Hi all,

My friend got done yesterday afternoon with more than the legal amount of alcohol in his system from Friday nights episode:rolleyes:!

I think he said he had 50mgs (or something to that effect) of alcohol in his breath test and the legal limit is 35.....

Just wondering if any one here could recommend a solicitor that would be used to dealing with these cases.

Many thanks
Niamh

MagicSean

What area?

niamh6426

Dublin, going to be up in the district court in Smithfield at the end of this month I think......

MagicSean

He should think about wether he wants one that can get him off or that can get his punishment minimised. From my own court experience they aren't always the same person.

niamh6426

Well is there a way that the charge can be dropped, ovo that would be the best option as he needs his car to get to and from work and home at the weekends....?

If not, I guess to minimise the punishment would be the next best option.....

Milk & Honey

It is a 2 year ban at that reading. It is difficult but not impossible to get off on a breath test case. In Dublin it would be more down to the barrister employed. It is an expensive gamble to try and get off. It can be an expensive day out if the case is lost. There will be a legal bill plus the fine! An early guilt plea can result in a lower fine and smaller legal bill.

CrackisWhack

Does anybody know of any good barristers in Dublin, in relation to drink driving? If you do you could pm me the details, it would be much appreciated.

nuac

In every District COurt area there are solicitors dealing with DD driving cases. Make enquiries with yuor usual solicitor, press or Gardaí.

Without denigrating my many friends at the bar, some District Judges react better to a solicitor who frequently appears before him/her.

Since the Dowra affair years ago DD driving cases are rarely dropped unless something drastic and permanent happens to a witness or vital evidence.

coylemj

nuac wrote: »

Since the Dowra affair years ago DD driving cases are rarely dropped unless something drastic and permanent happens to a witness or vital evidence.

The Dowra affair was an assault, not a DD case. The brother-in-law of the then Minister for Justice was a member of AGS and while off duty and drinking in a pub he hit a man and was charged with assault. One of the prosecution witnesses lived across the border in the North and on the day of the court hearing he was driving to the court to give evidence. For no good reason (he wasn't a known Provo) he was pulled over by the RUC and detained for several hours. As a result of his absence the judge in the District Court hearing the case against the Garda dismissed the case and all hell broke loose when it transpired that the chief prosecution witnesses' absence was due to him being held in an RUC station while the case was going on.

bath handle

nuac wrote: »

In every District COurt area there are solicitors dealing with DD driving cases. Make enquiries with yuor usual solicitor, press or Gardaí.

Without denigrating my many friends at the bar, some District Judges react better to a solicitor who frequently appears before him/her.

Since the Dowra affair years ago DD driving cases are rarely dropped unless something drastic and permanent happens to a witness or vital evidence.

In the Dublin District Court in the Richmond, most DD s are defended by barristers. It is different in country districts where Djs can be hostile to barristers.

rebecca 30

you dont need a lawyer , just plea guilty , take the 2 year ban and the €500 fine that comes with it , you dont need a barrister for the DD, if you really want a lawyer , ur looking at 800-1000, min, if you get a lawyer and they can get the case put back for 1/2 months while the lawyer reads over the garda statement but still have to do a 2 year ban if he gets done, which he more likely will

coylemj

bath handle wrote: »

In the Dublin District Court in the Richmond, most DD s are defended by barristers. It is different in country districts where Djs can be hostile to barristers.

My understanding is that the state solicitors around the country (not just in Dublin) brief barristers to prosecute DD charges because they expect most of them to be defended by barristers given that a lot of defendants are prepared to throw a lot of money at their defence in a desperate attempt to keep their driving licence.

So I don't think that country DJs are necessarily hostile to defence barristers, given that the case would normally be prosecuted by a barrister.

coylemj

rebecca 30 wrote: »

you dont need a lawyer , just plea guilty

That is crazy advice. Going into court on a DD charge without even a solicitor would be suicidal, the judge would take it that the defendant wasn't taking the issue seriously and hammer him.

Even if you're pleading guilty you need a solicitor, as a minimum to plead mitigation in an attempt to minimize the fine and disqualification.

canonball5

niamh6426 wrote: »

Hi all,

My friend got done yesterday afternoon with more than the legal amount of alcohol in his system from Friday nights episode:rolleyes:!

I think he said he had 50mgs (or something to that effect) of alcohol in his breath test and the legal limit is 35.....

Just wondering if any one here could recommend a solicitor that would be used to dealing with these cases.

Many thanks
Niamh

Niamh,do you know how he was stopped( was he pulled over for something else or was it a check point??).
You will need to find out the exact words he used when charged too.If he admitted anything he has no chance!!

jon1010

Coming from somebody who was prosecuted for 54mg breath sample, my best advice for your friend is to tell him to accept it and move on from it. My solicitor advised me to plead guilty straight away to get a low fine, the 2yr driving ban is non negotiable though, although it is possible to appeal after two thirds of the ban has been served!
The other option the solicitor gave me was to fight the case and try to get off on a technicality, however he informed me that this option would incur a far greater cost in legal fees and my chances of suceeding were very low! Needless to say I went for the first option!

Reloc8

coylemj wrote: »

That is crazy advice. Going into court on a DD charge without even a solicitor would be suicidal, the judge would take it that the defendant wasn't taking the issue seriously and hammer him.

Even if you're pleading guilty you need a solicitor, as a minimum to plead mitigation in an attempt to minimize the fine and disqualification.

Not true at all - don't know where you got that from to be honest - as the OP is referring to Dublin at least.

Once a person knows the following :-

- say sorry and try and explain why it happened, if there is a good reason, but don't seek to justify your behaviour. If it was just stupid, then say that, and that you realise how serious it was and will never do it again.

- be aware that you can have a deferreal of six months (or less) for the commencement of the ban and ask for this if you need it to arrange your affairs (work etc.).

- check your minimum disqualification. If it is 2 years ask for 2 years and 1 day. This can get you back on the road after 16 months of the ban being served.

There is no reason for them not to represent themselves on a plea of guilty to a drink driving hearing. They should also speak to the prosecuting gard before hand and ask will the gard speak up for them if they plead guilty.

A person proceeding with the aforesaid on a plea of guilty will be fined between €250 and €500 in any District Court in Dublin, disqualified for the minimum period (plus 1 day if the DQ is 2 years) and get a deferral if they need one, and that's more or less fact (assuming no previous convictions).

The reason to get representation would be to give some chance of winning the case. When you look at the lifetime cost of a drink driving conviction (inconvenience, expense, massive increase in insurance premium over a number of years) many people will wish to play every card in their defence.

coylemj

It's easy for you from the comfort of your home or office to set out those steps, quite a different matter for someone unfamiliar with the inside of a courtroom to think of all of them on the hoof when standing in front of a judge.

A person who represents himself has a fool for a client and it is not the job of the Gardai to 'speak up' for defendants.

OP, get a solicitor.

johnnyskeleton

coylemj wrote: »

My understanding is that the state solicitors around the country (not just in Dublin) brief barristers to prosecute DD charges because they expect most of them to be defended by barristers given that a lot of defendants are prepared to throw a lot of money at their defence in a desperate attempt to keep their driving licence.

So I don't think that country DJs are necessarily hostile to defence barristers, given that the case would normally be prosecuted by a barrister.

Never heard of that happening. Usually in Dublin it is a solicitor for the CPS and outside Dublin it is the Inspector who prosecutes. Sometimes local authorities will engage a prosecution barrister for tricky regulatory offence prosecutions, perhaps you are thinking of that?

There is only a very thin distinction between Dublin and non Dublin Judges - some Dublin Judges don't like barristers while some non Dublin Judges love barristers. That the most notorious barrister hating judges are based outside of Dublin is a mere co-incidence.

Reloc8 wrote: »

There is no reason for them not to represent themselves on a plea of guilty to a drink driving hearing. They should also speak to the prosecuting gard before hand and ask will the gard speak up for them if they plead guilty.

That's a fair enough comment but it's largely hypothetical. Pleading guilty to drink driving is like pleading guilty to murder.

Reloc8

coylemj wrote: »

It's easy for you from the comfort of your home or office to set out those steps, quite a different matter for someone unfamiliar with the inside of a courtroom to think of all of them on the hoof when standing in front of a judge.

A person who represents himself has a fool for a client and it is not the job of the Gardai to 'speak up' for defendants.

OP, get a solicitor.

Your point was that a judge would look on them with disfavour for 'not taking the matter seriously' - that's simply not true (in Dublin).

Anyone who has not the confidence to go about it themselves should of course get representation. That (ought to) have gone without saying.

Anyone who wishes to be legally advised as to the potential to contest their case or the consequences of doing so or of being convicted etc. should of course get a solicitor.

I'm not telling the OP not to.

coylemj

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Never heard of that happening. Usually in Dublin it is a solicitor for the CPS

Crown Prosecution Service - in Dublin?

coylemj

Reloc8 wrote: »

Anyone who wishes to be legally advised as to the potential to contest their case or the consequences of doing so or of being convicted etc. should of course get a solicitor.

I'm not telling the OP not to.

Yes you did...

Reloc8 wrote: »

There is no reason for them not to represent themselves on a plea of guilty to a drink driving hearing.

Reloc8

Oops .

My bad.

If the OP read that as me telling them not to get a solicitor (nb they don't need one its their mate) then they shouldn't have.

Not getting one, if a person chose not to, would not however be 'suicidal' due to the judge being peed off for not having one.

All is clear ?

canonball5

There is only a very thin distinction between Dublin and non Dublin Judges - some Dublin Judges don't like barristers while some non Dublin Judges love barristers. That the most notorious barrister hating judges are based outside of Dublin is a mere co-incidence.

Where are you getting this from???The OP's friend has two choices take the punishment or try and get off on a technical point of law.

He will get a 2 yr ban and fine of around a grand.He would be better to get a GOOD barrister who will find something to get him off!!

Reloc8

Sure - if he wants to contest the case that goes without saying.

Plenty people either can't afford or don't want to contest their case. That's all.

Of course he'd better off getting off !

I personally am referring only to Dublin because that's the only part of the country I'm willing to offer a view on.

CrackisWhack

Reloc8 wrote: »

Not true at all - don't know where you got that from to be honest - as the OP is referring to Dublin at least.

Once a person knows the following :-

- say sorry and try and explain why it happened, if there is a good reason, but don't seek to justify your behaviour. If it was just stupid, then say that, and that you realise how serious it was and will never do it again.

- be aware that you can have a deferreal of six months (or less) for the commencement of the ban and ask for this if you need it to arrange your affairs (work etc.).

- check your minimum disqualification. If it is 2 years ask for 2 years and 1 day. This can get you back on the road after 16 months of the ban being served.

There is no reason for them not to represent themselves on a plea of guilty to a drink driving hearing. They should also speak to the prosecuting gard before hand and ask will the gard speak up for them if they plead guilty.

A person proceeding with the aforesaid on a plea of guilty will be fined between €250 and €500 in any District Court in Dublin, disqualified for the minimum period (plus 1 day if the DQ is 2 years) and get a deferral if they need one, and that's more or less fact (assuming no previous convictions).

The reason to get representation would be to give some chance of winning the case. When you look at the lifetime cost of a drink driving conviction (inconvenience, expense, massive increase in insurance premium over a number of years) many people will wish to play every card in their defence.

Is this true?

Reloc8

Yes except I should have spelled it 'deferral' as opposed to deferreal.

You can request the ban to commence up to six months after the court date on which you are convicted (plead guilty or are found guilty)

Six months is the maximum - its not always granted. Its up to an individual judge but it would be unusual if a guilty plea is entered not to get a deferral if necessary for work/personal reasons etc.

Bear in mind that the six months or whatever deferral just puts off the evil day - you still serve the full ban.

If no deferral is granted the ban commences 14 days after the date of the court hearing at which you plead or are found guilty.

johnnyskeleton

coylemj wrote: »

Crown Prosecution Service - in Dublin?

Chief Prosecution Solicitor, the solicitors who deal with prosecutions in Dublin District and Circuit Courts, and also deal with Central Criminal Court, the Court of Criminal Appeal and the Special Criminal Court.

http://www.dppireland.ie/contact_us/chief_prosecution_solicitor/

canonball5 wrote: »

Where are you getting this from???

Another poster made the comment that "country" judges don't like barristers. But I wouldn't necessarily agree. Many judges are unassigned and so are just as likely to show up in Dublin as they are outside of Dublin.

Case in point:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0525/1224271089003.html

Milk & Honey

That case happened because a judge outside the Dublin metropolitan District does not like dealing with barristers encouraged another judge in the same sort of behaviour. In Dublin, District Court Judges are used to dealing with barristers. There are barristers appearing daily in most of the District Courts in Dublin. Some judges don't like them but they are used to it and will live with it. In country Districts, outside the Dublin Commuter belt, barristers rarely appear. many judges in these districts are hostile to barristers and prefer dealing with local solicitors. Movable judges when sitting in Dublin can be tolerant of barristers and behave differently when in a country area. The only thing that can be definitively said is that in the District Court it is vital to know your judge.

johnnyskeleton

Milk & Honey wrote: »

That case happened because a judge outside the Dublin metropolitan District does not like dealing with barristers encouraged another judge in the same sort of behaviour. In Dublin, District Court Judges are used to dealing with barristers. There are barristers appearing daily in most of the District Courts in Dublin. Some judges don't like them but they are used to it and will live with it. In country Districts, outside the Dublin Commuter belt, barristers rarely appear. many judges in these districts are hostile to barristers and prefer dealing with local solicitors. Movable judges when sitting in Dublin can be tolerant of barristers and behave differently when in a country area. The only thing that can be definitively said is that in the District Court it is vital to know your judge.

That judge is now assigned to Dublin. I don't think it is a valid point to suggest that all judges outside of Dublin don't like barristers and that all judges in Dublin do like barristers. Barristers appear in district courts all around the country on a daily basis, no district is an exception. I would be surprised to find a district court sitting that doesn't have at least 1 barrister turn up. There is also no reason to suggest that the judges in Dublin don't prefer the local solicitors of Dublin to the barristers.

I accept that the most celebrated cases of judges who don't like barristers have been outside of Dublin, but to draw the conclusion from that that judges outside Dublin hate barristers and judges in Dublin like or at least tolerate them dosen't add up.

Milk & Honey

The judge who caused that incident ( not the one named in the report) is still in situ in Bray. There have been further incidents.
It would be extremely unusual in many parts of the country for barristers to appear. Cork and Galway are two examples where appearances by barristers in the District Courts are very rare. A lot of DJs like to have the same advocates appearing before them all the time.

tenchi-fan

The judge in my court is very impatient with solicitors, particularly with younger ones. I reckon he'd hate barristers.
As for drink driving charges, a cut-and-dry guilty case can cost less than a couple of hundred outside Dublin. A barrister could cost €5000.

tenchi-fan

tenchi-fan wrote: »

The judge in my court is very impatient with solicitors, particularly with younger ones. I reckon he'd hate barristers.
As for drink driving charges, a cut-and-dry guilty case can cost less than a couple of hundred outside Dublin. A barrister could cost €5000.

Yeah, a barrister could cost €5000, assuming you had to pay to have Daniel O'Connell reanimated to argue the case it could definitely cost that.

Tom Young

Milk & Honey wrote: »

The judge who caused that incident ( not the one named in the report) is still in situ in Bray. There have been further incidents.
It would be extremely unusual in many parts of the country for barristers to appear. Cork and Galway are two examples where appearances by barristers in the District Courts are very rare. A lot of DJs like to have the same advocates appearing before them all the time.

That case called Heinullian and the Judge sitting was not the local regular DJ, but a movable one.

Tom Young

On another point - Barristers (and solicitors) appear before the Courts (all jurisdictions) by right ... not by invitation. Once the formalities required for Court are observed, no Court should refuse to hear an officer. Attendance in the Circuit and Superior Courts is a formality in relation to Barristers but having DJs think they hear cases based on local solicitor attendance and retention only is not at all correct. Despite what we all know to be be common enough experience.

Kosseegan

Tom Young wrote: »

That case called Heinullian and the Judge sitting was not the local regular DJ, but a movable one.

The regular one was sitting there supervising. It was the regular one who was bvehind it.The movable judge was in training.

Tom Young

Kosseegan wrote: »

The regular one was sitting there supervising. It was the regular one who was bvehind it.The movable judge was in training.

Very good. Thanks for clarifying that. Thanks to Justice Hedigan for clarifying the training errors also!

murrayp4

Errr...has anyone actually answered the OP's question yet, i.e. recommend a solicitor.

Tom Young

murrayp4 wrote: »

Errr...has anyone actually answered the OP's question yet, i.e. recommend a solicitor.

Actually we are not about that here. PM the OP should anyone have a recommendation.

CrackisWhack

well ok, i had 70 micrograms of alcohol per 100ml of breath, i was in court today, and i got a 4 year ban and €200 euro fine.

before anyone gets on their high horse, i know i was completely in the wrong and kick myself every day for it, so don't even consider drinking and driving y'all:o

rebecca 30

CrackisWhack wrote: »

well ok, i had 70 micrograms of alcohol per 100ml of breath, i was in court today, and i got a 4 year ban and €200 euro fine.

before anyone gets on their high horse, i know i was completely in the wrong and kick myself every day for it, so don't even consider drinking and driving y'all:o

Was there a reason you got 4 years ? Is it not 3 year ban ?

Just wondering ???

johnnyskeleton

CrackisWhack wrote: »

well ok, i had 70 micrograms of alcohol per 100ml of breath, i was in court today, and i got a 4 year ban and €200 euro fine.

before anyone gets on their high horse, i know i was completely in the wrong and kick myself every day for it, so don't even consider drinking and driving y'all:o

No one will pass comment on the rights and wrongs of drinking and driving, but please tell me you didn't plead guilty, did you?

coylemj

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Pleading guilty to drink driving is like pleading guilty to murder.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

No one will pass comment on the rights and wrongs of drinking and driving, but please tell me you didn't plead guilty, did you?

Surely if the processes were followed correctly by the Gardai and you accept that you were over the limit then pleading guilty is the right course to take?

Doesn't pleading guilty normally get you a lower penalty than if you plead not guilty but get convicted?

johnnyskeleton

coylemj wrote: »

Surely if the processes were followed correctly by the Gardai and you accept that you were over the limit then pleading guilty is the right course to take?

Doesn't pleading guilty normally get you a lower penalty than if you plead not guilty but get convicted?

Lower fine maybe, and if there are previous convictions the issue of imprisonment arises, but on a first offence there are mandatory disqualification periods.

Sure occasionally there will be someone who actually did it and they will plead guilty, but the problem (or benefit, depending on your view) with mandatory sentences is that there is little or no incentive to plead guilty*

*does not constitute legal advice and is not intended to be treated literally in all circumstances. If you are charged with a) drink driving or b) murder, you should consult a solicitor.

MagicSean

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Lower fine maybe, and if there are previous convictions the issue of imprisonment arises, but on a first offence there are mandatory disqualification periods.

Sure occasionally there will be someone who actually did it and they will plead guilty, but the problem (or benefit, depending on your view) with mandatory sentences is that there is little or no incentive to plead guilty*

*does not constitute legal advice and is not intended to be treated literally in all circumstances. If you are charged with a) drink driving or b) murder, you should consult a solicitor.

A guilty plea often results in any other accompanying charges being withdrawn or taken into consideration. Usually the minimum disqualification is imposed too.

CrackisWhack

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

No one will pass comment on the rights and wrongs of drinking and driving, but please tell me you didn't plead guilty, did you?

I did plead guilty, i was expectiing it to be 3 years, because i just missed the 67mg which would have been 2 years, so it depends on the judge i guess.

Kosseegan

CrackisWhack wrote: »

I did plead guilty, i was expectiing it to be 3 years, because i just missed the 67mg which would have been 2 years, so it depends on the judge i guess.

There is no guessing. The judge has no discretion. If there is a minimum ban at a reading he must give it.

CrackisWhack

Kosseegan wrote: »

There is no guessing. The judge has no discretion. If there is a minimum ban at a reading he must give it.

Yes I know, the minimum ban for the level of alcohol in my system was 3 years, but I got a 4 year ban.

The Judge has no discretion to give you less than the minimum but every discretion to give you more.

johnnyskeleton

CrackisWhack wrote: »

Yes I know, the minimum ban for the level of alcohol in my system was 3 years, but I got a 4 year ban.

Your solicitor will advise you as to the options for appeal.

jfelectric

Hi
I know this is an old thread but if anyone still reading it could advice. I got a summons today for a charge of drink driving on 15/4/2011 that is 3 years and 3 months later, is this legal.

Pro Hoc Vice

jfelectric wrote: »

Hi
I know this is an old thread but if anyone still reading it could advice. I got a summons today for a charge of drink driving on 15/4/2011 that is 3 years and 3 months later, is this legal.

The answer would depend on a number of issues, and to be very honest requires proper legal advice from a person in possesion of all the facts. It would be very much in your interest to get that advice as a good solicitor should be able to get a dismiss of the charge.

The longest time between offence and summons finally being served I have seen was over 8 years, that had to go to appeal to eventually have the matter struck out.

While a summons in such matters must by statute be requested within 6 months no such limit applies to service. But case law does exist in the issue of delay, which would be of assistance.