Is there a set defence in relation to procedural arguments regarding drug driving allegations.
We get asked this question on a regular basis. To the extent where we are convinced there are lawyers out there suggesting that there is a standard procedural defence to drug driving that can be used in each and every case.
The suggestion seems to be that the police and the pharmacologist they use to get samples tested always make catastrophic mistakes. We have even heard that people have been told that certain lawyers have never lost a drug driving case to date by using these arguments. We know of no such law firms but would be very interested to understand the arguments they are using.
Our view is simple. Every case is unique. Predominantly the police know what they are doing and conduct the procedure correctly, as do their pharmacologists. It would be ludicrous to suggest that the police constantly make the same mistakes over and over again and never learn. Neither can you bombard the Crown Prosecution Service into throwing in the towel by simply raising spurious arguments in relation to technical arguments that have no merit.
If the prosecution was to simply throw in the towel then everybody would try these arguments and this would open the floodgates. There are strict procedures for dealing with the taking of blood samples and it is important that any law firm you instruct knows what they’re looking for, but it is equally important that a law firm does not try to raise spurious arguments without merit on your behalf.
Ultimately it’s you that ends up getting sentenced if the arguments fail and it’s often important to get as much credit by pleading guilty at the earliest opportunity if you have not got a valid defence.