July 27, 2023
Not Guilty Verdict Secured by Guy Gosheron in Assault by Beating Case
Back to News & Blog
CPS Persuaded to Drop Case Against Moped Rider Who Admitted Drink Driving
Our client, AW, had been charged with an offence of drink driving and, if convicted, would have been disqualified from driving for between 12 to 18 months. AW accepted that he drove his moped after drinking alcohol, but said that he only did it because he was being attacked and needed to escape. He was represented by Guy Gosheron in the proceedings. As a result of Guy’s attention to detail and expert knowledge of the criminal justice system he successfully defended AW and the case concluded when the CPS decided to discontinue the case. Read on to learn why…
What Was This Drink Drive Case About?
One December evening in the build up to Christmas, the police received a report of two drunk males fighting in the street. When officers arrived on the scene they saw our client, AW riding his moped towards them. AW stopped in front of the officers and told them that he had just been attacked by another male and threatened with a knife. AW informed the officers that he had been drinking and he subsequently failed a breath test.
Our client was arrested and charged with an offence of drink driving (driving a motor vehicle on a road after consuming alcohol above the legal limit, contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988). Despite AW telling the police that he had been attacked and threatened with a knife, the police did not investigate the circumstances further and did not interview our client.
How Did Hill Twine Solicitors & Barristers Deal With This Case?
Our firm established that AW was eligible for legal aid. It is not always easy to secure legal aid for drink driving cases, but AW benefitted from the skills and experience of our paralegal team and the legal aid application was granted. This meant that Hill Twine was able to represent AW at court without it costing him a penny. Our Guy Gosheron was appointed to this case and obtained instructions from the client on how to proceed with the case. Guy discovered through his meticulous preparation that the man who had attacked our client had an upcoming court trial. Upon our client pleading not guilty to the offence, Guy made representations to the court to list our client’s trial after that of the other male. Guy told the court that it was only appropriate that our client’s trial is held after any trial that his attacker might require. This application was granted by the court and a trial date was fixed. Guy also identified technical legal issues with the admissibility in evidence of the phone call of the eyewitness, who had not subsequently made a witness statement.
What Happened At Court?
The trial in this case was first listed in March, but then had to be re-scheduled. The same thing happened with the second trial in June, which was re-listed for November. Although frustrating, the delays worked to AW’s advantage because, in the meantime, the male accused of attacking AW pleaded guilty to offences of assault by beating and possession of a bladed article against AW. Guy made representations to the CPS following these convictions, arguing that the case against AW should be dropped. The argument centred around the fact that whilst AW accepted drink driving, it only happened because he was protecting himself when he tried to get away on his moped from someone who was attacking him and threatening him with a knife. Moreover, the CPS had problems proving the case because the eyewitness had not made a witness statement. Despite the strength and merit of Guy’s arguments, the CPS decided that they would continue with the trial against AW. Guy continued to fight our client’s case and to prepare for the trial in November. The approach taken by Hill Twine Solicitors & Barristers was successful because in August, three months before the third trial date, the CPS agreed that the prosecution should not proceed. The CPS discontinued the case, accepting that there was not enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.
As a result of this discontinuance our client was not convicted of the drink driving offence. This successful outcome was secured by Guy’s excellent knowledge of the criminal justice system, in particular the technical nature of the rules of evidence, and the foresight to understand the ramifications of having our client’s trial after his attacker’s trial. His pro-active approach to this case ultimately saved our client having to face a trial.
Read more Hill Twine Solicitors & Barristers news here, or by visiting our News & Blog page.
If you have any questions or need advice