Duress and drink driving

A defendant who commits a crime under duress may in certain circumstances be excused liability. The defence can arise where the duress results from threats or the circumstances in which you find yourself.

Duress

The four elements of duress are as follows:

  1. That you reasonably believed that threats of death or serious injury had been made against you.

  2. That you reasonably believed that the threats would be carried out immediately and the threat was effective in the sense that there was no reasonable avenue of escape open to you to avoid the perceived threat

  3. That the threat of death or serious injury was the direct cause of you committing the offence.

  4. A sober person of reasonable firmness of your age, sex and character would have done what you did.

The prosecution must prove your guilt. It is for them to prove that the defence of duress does not apply. It is not for you to prove that it does apply.

Caselaw

There are several authorities regarding drink driving and duress.  Some of which are outlined in brief below:

DPP v Jones [1990] RTR 33

The defendant had been subjected to an attack in the car park of a public house. He got into his car which was then hit and kicked. He decided his only means of escape was to drive away. He continued to his home, a distance of one-and-a-half to two miles. The court held that the defence of necessity was available for a part of the journey to his house. The defendant did not even bother to check whether he was being pursued, whether on foot, or in a vehicle or in any other way. The defence of necessity did not avail the defendant other than for the initial part of the journey. It was unnecessary for him to have continued all the way home in his car. He could easily, especially as it appears that he was not being pursued, have pulled into a side road or into some other convenient place and proceeded for the rest of his journey home on foot. The defence of duress was not available to the defendant because he drove for a longer period than was necessary.

DPP v Bell [1992] Crim. L.R. 176

The defendant had been out drinking with some friends. Some trouble broke out which caused him to run back to his car pursued by others who were less than well disposed towards him. Fearing serious physical injury, he drove off for some distance in a state of terror. The fact that he drove only for some distance down the road and not all the way home was of significance. The defence of duress applied and had not been disproved by the prosecution.

DPP v Pittaway [1994] Crim. L.R. 600

The defendant ran 200yds home from a party outside which she had been the subject of angry words and unspecified threats from a man with whom she had formed a relationship, hid in her car for five minutes and then drove 200yds before being stopped. The man she was seeking to avoid was not in the vicinity at the time. In the court’s view, the justices had neglected to apply the objective limb of the test, since there was no evidence in either case of a threat of death or serious bodily injury.

DPP v Tomkinson [2001] R.T.R. 38

Following a New Year’s Eve party, the defendant was violently assaulted by her husband, who also injured himself and then departed in a taxi for hospital having left her without a phone, but saying that police were on their way and that she had better leave before he returned home. The police having failed to arrive, she left her house at about 6am to drive to her former home (where her children were) some 72 miles away. She was stopped by police about 9.30am and when breathalysed was found to be over the prescribed limit. The defence of duress did not avail her; she was no longer subjected to any effective threat of violence when she left the immediate area of her home in her car to commence the long journey from Harrogate to Sale, and there was no basis for the justices’ conclusion that a sober woman of reasonable firmness would or might have responded to the situation as the defendant did and drive 72 miles over the Pennines

CPS v Brown [2007] EWHC 3274

Mr Brown said that he had driven to avoid a violent confrontation following a threatening phone call. At the time he was stopped there was no evidence that the threat was continuing or that he reasonably believed he was being pursued. The case was remitted to the magistrates’ court with a direction to convict. The court did not have to resolve the question of whether or not the defence was available at the time he got into the car as it was not available when he was stopped.

Notice of Proposed Driving Disqualification

A defendant will be sent a notice of proposed driving disqualification if convicted of an offence and the court is considering whether to disqualify - because of the seriousness of the offence or the number of penalty points on the defendant's licence that were live at the time of the offence.

Receipt of a notice of proposed driving disqualification does not mean that a disqualification is inevitable. In many cases, a disqualification can be avoided - especially if the defendant can establish that exceptional hardship would follow from disqualification.

The notice will include a date by which a reply must be sent to the court. The reply can be sent by email or post.

If no reply is received then the court will proceed in the absence of the defendant and is entitled to disqualify in absence. The notice warns the defendant that a disqualification in absence would be immediate (from the deadline to respond).

There is usually a form to complete with two options:

A) No further information. I have no further information to give to the court and want the court to proceed in my absence. I understand that I may be disqualified on or after [date] and should not drive from that date until the result is confirmed by the court

B) I want to attend court. I wish to give more information to the court and request a hearing date to be set. I am unable to attend court on the following dates: [list avoid dates]

 

ADVICE

Disqualification from driving has serious consequences for many people.  In many cases, disqualification can be avoided where the case is properly prepared for court and the best mitigation is presented to the court. Instructing a direct access barrister is often less expensive than instructing a solicitor.

I have extensive experience and specialist knowledge of motoring offences.  I am regularly instructed by solicitors, corporations and members of the public. Anyone can instruct me directly pursuant to the Public Access scheme.

My fees are reasonable and affordable. Most services are performed on an agreed fixed fee basis.  I will deal with your case from start to finish. You will not instruct me but get someone else at court. Your case will not be prepared by unqualified paralegals. I do all of the work on your case. Please contact me for further information.

Single Justice Procedure Notice - SJPN

The Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 introduced the Single Justice Procedure which applies only to cases involving adults charged with summary-only non-imprisonable offences. The single justice procedure took effect from 13 April 2015. It will enable such cases to be dealt with by a single magistrate sitting with a legal adviser on the papers without the attendance of either a prosecutor or the defendant. The defendant will instead be able to engage with the court online (or in writing) and the case will not be heard in a traditional courtroom.

It will be for prosecutors to identify cases which might be suitable for the single justice procedure. These will be commenced by a written charge and a new type of document called a ‘single justice procedure notice.'

The single justice procedure notice will be sent to the defendant explaining the offence which has given rise to the proceedings, the options available to the defendant, and the consequences of not responding to the notice. It will be accompanied by the evidence upon which the prosecutor will be relying to prove the case.

The notice will give the defendant a date to respond in writing to the allegation - rather than a date to attend court. However, the defendant will have the right to request a traditional hearing in open court. If he wishes to plead not guilty, or otherwise wants to have a hearing in a traditional courtroom, the defendant can indicate these wishes in the response to the single justice procedure notice. In such circumstances the case will be referred to a traditional court and the case will be managed in the normal way.

In cases where a defendant pleads guilty and indicates that he would like to have the matter dealt with in his absence, or fails to respond to the notice at all, a single magistrate will consider the case on the basis of the evidence submitted in writing by the prosecutor, and any written mitigation from the defendant. The single magistrate can convict and sentence, or dismiss the charge as appropriate.

If a single justice considers at any point that it would be inappropriate to conduct the case under the single justice procedure, the justice can refer it to a traditional magistrates’ court.

 

 

Court clerk (legal adviser) shown here advising a Justice of the Peace (Magistrate). Photo credit: Law Society Gazette.

Court clerk (legal adviser) shown here advising a Justice of the Peace (Magistrate). Photo credit: Law Society Gazette.

 

HELP WITH YOUR CASE

I'm often asked to advise about plea and the correct strategy to best deal with Single Justice Procedure Notices.  I frequently draft mitigation statements for my clients and the cost of doing that is relatively small. Please contact me for further details.

 

Mitigation

In 2007, the Prison Reform Trust published a paper on the role of personal factors in sentencing. The research identifed the following mitigating factors cited by sentencers as affecting sentence.

1. The criminal act

  • Lack of seriousness/impact of offence
  • Played minor role in relation to others
  • Received ‘rough justice’ during criminal act

2. Immediate circumstances of the offence

  • Acted under pressure from/on behalf of others
  • Provocation/threat
  • Highly emotional/distressed
  • Lack of understanding of offence
  • Spontaneous/opportunistic offence
  • No intention to cause harm
  • Offence was ‘error of judgement’

3. Wider circumstances at time of the offence

  • Youth
  • Difficult family/social circumstances
  • Financial pressures
  • Social / intellectual limitations
  • Pressing personal or family need
  • Vulnerable/immature/naïve
  • Psychiatric illness/problems

4. Response to offence and prosecution

  • Remorse (and efforts at reparation)
  • Faced up to/understands criminal behaviour
  • Has been addressing problems since arrest
  • Co-operation with authorities
  • Letter from defendant to court
  • Court processes stressful and/or long-running
  • Has lost job and reputation
  • Defendant represented himself well
  • Serious demeanour in court
  • Supportive attitude of victim

5. Defendant’s past

  • Good character or limited/irrelevant/gap in previous offending
  • Difficult/deprived background
  • Has led a productive/worthwhile life
  • Has shown a general improvement in behaviour
  • Offence uncharacteristic/’let yourself down’
  • Engaged well with previous community punishment


6.  Defendant’s present and future

  • Family responsibilities
  • Can address/is addressing drug problems
  • Unlikely to reoffend/cause harm (general point)
  • Prison will not benefit defendant and/or the public
  • Supportive family/partner
  • Currently in work/training or prospects of work/training
  • Can address/is addressing alcohol problems
  • Can or may make amends for offending behaviour
  • Is a capable person
  • Letters of recommendation
  • Age (older)
  • Physical illness/disability
  • Non-English speaking (therefore prison would be especially difficult)

7.  Proportionality and consistency

  • Need to avoid over-long custodial sentence
  • Consistency with co-defendants
  • Has effectively spent time on curfew order (on bail)
  • Has spent time in hospital since offence
  • Totality principle

 

 

Guilty pleas and ancillary orders

Q: Does a guilty plea entitle an offender to a reduced disqualification period, or a reduced number of penalty points?

A: No.

The Sentencing Council Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea: Definitive guideline states at paragraph 2.6;

"A reduction in sentence should only be applied to the punitive elements of a penalty. The guilty plea reduction has no impact on sentencing decisions in relation to ancillary orders, including orders of disqualification from driving."

In R v Needham [2016] EWCA Crim 455, Treacy LJ in considering the extended driving disqualification provisions referred to the aforementioned guideline and at paragraph 41 said;

“There have been no submissions that that approach should be modified as a result of the introduction of the new sections. We consider that the existing guidance should continue to apply."

 

 

 

What is a "public place" in the context of the Road Traffic Act 1988?

This is a matter of fact to be determined by the court. The following have been held to be "public places":

  • The car park of a pub; Vannet v Burns (1988)
  • A hotel driveway; Dunn v Keane (1976)
  • A multi-storey NCP car park; Bowman v DPP (1991)
  • A hospital car park; DPP v Greenwood (1997)
  • The car park of a car dealership; May v DPP (2005)
  • A field used for point-to-point racing; Collinson (1931)
  • A field used for parking at an agricultural show; Paterson v Ogilvey (1957)
  • A privately owned caravan site; DPP v Vivier (1991)
  • Freight immigration lanes at a dockyard; DPP v Coulman (1993)
  • A school playground; Rodger v Normand (1994)

The following have been held not to be "public places":

  • Privately owned land next to a private club; Pugh v Knipe (1972)
  • A community centre car park; Havell v DPP (1993)
  • A company car park used by staff and customers; Spence (1999)
  • An internal roadway at a University campus; Cowan v DPP (2013)

How do portable speed cameras work?

Police forces in England & Wales sometimes use portable laser speedmeters to detect excess speed. Two commonly used devices are the LTI 20.20 and Kustom Pro Laser III.

A speedmeter measures and displays the speed of a moving vehicle and the range at which the speed was measured. Laser speedmeters calculate speed by determining distances - by measuring the time of flight of short pulses of infrared light. 

A laser speedmeter may be hand-held:

Here is the same device:

The device has detected a vehicle moving at 51 mph at a distance of 184.2 metres. 

The same technology may be used from the inside of a so-called Safety Camera Van:

Here is the inside of the van:

The above image shows a laser speedmeter attached to a tripod, screen and video recorder. The operator has detected a motorist travelling at 119 mph, from a distance of 267 metres.

The video may be kept for evidential purposes, and can be used to produce stills. Here is an example still:

Images by North Yorkshire Police and Surrey Police.