Can you please explain how the hip flask defence works and can you really defend drink driving allegations using it?
In the UK, a Hip Flask Defence can be used to defend drinking and driving allegations when alcohol has been consumed between the time that the alleged offence or accident occured and the breathalyser test, so a positive breath test does not indicate that the driver was intoxicated at the time of the offence.
You can only run the hip flask defence if it applies to the circumstances of your case. It does work if it’s the truth and the magistrates believe you.
This drink drive defence is based on the argument that you only consumed the alcohol that took you over the limit after you stopped driving. Therefore it doesn’t work if you are stopped in the act of driving.
The defence is normally used where someone has been seen driving and reported. Then gets home and has a drink, after which the police arrive and take a blood sample. The hip flask argument is based on the fact that the alcohol that took them over the drink drive limit was consumed after they had stopped driving, therefore they were not over the limit at the time they were driving.
To establish this defence you need to get a pharmacologist to do a back calculation to show that at the time you were driving you were under the limit. This is not cheap!
You have to be really clear about what you drank and when you drank it otherwise the pharmacologists report will not make sense and will show that you are being evasive with the truth.
Tell me what’s actually happened and I may be able to help further.