Drunk in Charge Case Dismissed: The Role of Mental Health

Being accused of being drunk in charge of a vehicle is confusing and distressing, particularly if you had no intention of driving at all. At Pragma Law, we regularly defend clients in this situation and ensure the court considers all the evidence – not just the assumptions made by the police.

In this recent case, our client was acquitted after a trial before a District Judge and was granted a Defence Costs Order. The case illustrates how important it is to understand the legal test and to challenge failures in the police investigation.

The Background – A Call for Help That Led to an Arrest

Our client was suffering from serious mental health difficulties. Aware that he was not in a fit state to drive, he contacted friends to come and help him. He remained with his vehicle while waiting for them.

One of his friends was unable to reach him and became increasingly worried about his safety. Out of genuine concern, they phoned 999 and asked the police to attend to ensure his safety.

When officers arrived, instead of providing the help that had been requested, they arrested him on suspicion of being drunk in charge of a vehicle.

At the police station:

• A blood sample showed he was over the legal limit.
• No interview was conducted at all.
• He was therefore given no opportunity to explain that he had called friends, had no intention of driving, and was simply waiting for assistance.

Despite this lack of enquiry into his intentions or his mental health, he was charged and prosecuted.

The Law – The Statutory Defence and Burden of Proof

For a “drunk in charge” allegation, the prosecution must first prove that:

1. You were in charge of a motor vehicle, and
2. You were over the prescribed alcohol limit.

Once that is established, the burden shifts to the defence to prove the statutory defence: that there was no likelihood of you driving the vehicle whilst the proportion of alcohol in your body remained above the legal limit, and this must be shown on the balance of probabilities.

In other words, it is for the defence to demonstrate it is more likely than not that you would not have driven while over the limit.

Sentencing Council guidance shows that a conviction for being drunk in charge can lead to a community order and a driving disqualification of 6–12 months, depending on the level of alcohol and the circumstances. Even where no driving actually takes place, the consequences of a conviction can therefore be extremely serious, including a criminal record and potential impact on employment and future opportunities. 

Failure to Investigate Reasonable Lines of Enquiry

In this case, the police did not interview our client at all. That meant:

• They took no formal account of his mental health difficulties.
• They did not record or probe his reasons for being in the vehicle.
• They never allowed him to explain that he had called friends for help and was waiting for them rather than intending to drive.

In other Pragma Law cases, the courts have been critical where officers failed to pursue reasonable lines of enquiry, including asking obvious questions about a suspect’s intentions and understanding the statutory defence in drunk‑in‑charge cases. 

The same theme arose here. By choosing not to interview him, the police failed to gather key evidence that was plainly relevant to whether there was any likelihood of driving.

Building the Defence – Witnesses and Expert Evidence

Lucy represented our client at trial before a District Judge. The defence called several witnesses, including the client himself. Their evidence was:

• Clear, consistent and unshaken in cross‑examination.
• Entirely supportive of the client’s account that he had no intention of driving.
• Consistent with the fact that he had reached out for help and was waiting for his friends.

We also obtained an expert report analysing the blood sample and alcohol levels over time. The expert concluded that, by the time there was any realistic chance of our client driving, he would have been well below the legal limit.

This was crucial. The statutory test focuses on the likelihood of driving while still over the limit. The expert evidence showed that, even if he had later decided to drive, his alcohol level would have fallen below the limit before that became a realistic possibility.

Taken together, the eyewitness evidence and the expert report satisfied the court that the statutory defence was made out on the balance of probabilities.

The Outcome – Not Guilty and Defence Costs Order

The District Judge accepted the defence case and found our client:

• Not guilty of being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle; and
• Entitled to a Defence Costs Order, allowing him to recover some of his legal costs.

Most importantly, he avoided a criminal record and the significant personal and professional consequences that would have followed a conviction.

What This Case Shows

This case underlines several important points for anyone accused of being drunk in charge:

• The burden is on the defence to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that there was no likelihood of driving while over the limit.
• A lack of a police interview can amount to a failure to investigate reasonable lines of enquiry, especially where mental health and intention are central issues. 
• Expert evidence on alcohol levels can be decisive in showing that, by the time driving might have occurred, you would have been under the legal limit.
• Being in or near a vehicle while over the limit does not automatically mean you are guilty – each case turns on its own facts.

Accused of Being Drunk in Charge? We Can Help

If you have been arrested or charged with being drunk in charge of a vehicle, you may feel that the police have jumped to conclusions or failed to listen to your side of the story.

We can:

• Assess whether the statutory defence applies in your case.
• Obtain expert evidence where appropriate.
• Identify and challenge failures in the police investigation.
• Represent you robustly at court.

For clear, pragmatic advice from an experienced drunk in charge solicitor, contact Pragma Law today.

Need help with your case?