GLASGOW OFFICE: 0141 550 1074 CALL NOW
DUMFRIES OFFICE: 01387 252 777 CALL NOW
INVERNESS OFFICE: 01463 732 580 CALL NOW

Drink Driving Dunfermline

Reduced Sentence
Dunfermline Sheriff Court and Justice of the Peace Court

Our client was accused of drink-driving in Dunfermline. He was in a precarious situation as the reading was very high (over 4 times the limit) and he was desperate not to be without his licence. His position was simply that he had commenced drinking after he had ceased driving - also known as the 'hip-flask defence'. We instructed a forensic toxicologist to determine whether or not our client's proposed line of defence would be feasible. Unfortunately, the scientific report did not match our client's recollection of what he had consumed. As such we advised that a plea of guilty was now the most appropriate course of action as his proposed line of defence had no realistic prospect of success. Drink driving offences in Dunfermline are treated very seriously and the plea was intimated to the Court at the Intermediate Diet. Following representations to the Court, our client was given a 14 month period of disqualification and was deemed suitable for the drink drive rehabilitation scheme which further reduced the sentence by 3 months giving a net disqualification of 11 months. This was an outstanding result for a reading of 91 microgrammes in breath where the limit is 22 microgrammes. It's not always possible to save someone's driving licence and the best that a reputable road traffic lawyer can do is limit the damage to the licence as much as possible. If you are accused of drink driving in Dunfermline or elsewhere in Scotland, contact our office for free, impartial advice. 

Published: 06/07/2017

Need help with a similar case?

Contact Us

See also

Drink driving No Case To Answer

Our client was stopped by two Police officers in the act of driving, breathalysed, and found to be in excess of the prescribed limit. A technical line of defence was advanced at trial which resulted in our submission of no case to answer being upheld....