When considering plea options, clients often worry that if they plead not guilty and are found guilty after a trial, they will receive a worse sentence than if they had pleaded guilty at the first opportunity. In the majority of cases, the main consequence to consider will be financial but in an effort to be as clear as possible, we have addressed some of the common misconceptions and concerns below:
Pleading guilty at the first court hearing does involve some potential benefits (however, they are not what most people think.)
Credit
The court will apply an automatic credit of 33% towards the fine, community order, or in severe and high-risk cases, a prison sentence.
However, credit is not applicable to the length of any driving disqualification a defendant might receive if convicted.
Therefore, a defendant who is found guilty after trial will not receive a longer disqualification than had they pleaded guilty at the outset.
Other Consequences
The other main consequences of being found guilty after a trial are considered in brief detail below:
Legal fees
These are likely to be significantly higher having taken a case to trial than if you had pleaded guilty at the outset.
Also, if convicted after a trial, there is no reimbursement of legal fees from the Court’s central fund.
Court and prosecution costs
Typically these are in the region of £100 if pleading guilty at the first hearing. However, they can increase to around £775 if convicted after a trial. Additional costs can be claimed by the prosecution if they have had to involve their own forensic experts or if the case was complex.
Drink driving course
The Drink Driving course is currently only available for alcohol-related offences where a minimum 12 month ban can be imposed. The course enables the convicted offender to reduce the length of ban imposed by up to 25% by attending and paying for a course. The reduction offered can vary and be less than 25%, but in most cases, it will be as much as 25% off the length of disqualification.
The offer of a course is discretionary. It is sometimes not offered where a defendant has previously completed a course.
As it is discretionary, we have also seen a very small number of cases (4 out of 15) where the court has not offered the course when convicted following a trial.
Stress and anxiety
Being arrested, charged and prosecuted is a traumatic event for most people. Many clients we help have never been involved in the criminal justice system and the idea of having months of uncertainty can be incredibly stressful. Therefore, we do have to flag this as one of the risks of defending the case as this will mean months of having the case continue. If you do choose to put yourself through this heightened level of stress and are then convicted after trial, this can feel like you have suffered more than had you pleaded guilty at the outset.
Potential prosecution for additional charge(s)
This one is a rarity. However, the prosecution are able to add charges even after your first court hearing. There is a 6 month time limit for some charges to be raised but in some of the most serious charges such as dangerous driving there is no time limit. It is rare for additional charges to be added, but if there is a risk of this, then you should factor this into your decision about the plea you choose to enter.
Another risk, although extremely rare in our cases, is being prosecuted for the very serious charge of perverting the course of justice or perjury. If you intend to present a defence that is untruthful, we can play no part in this. None of our valid defences involve putting forwards false information that would mean we knowingly mislead the court. However, there have been some extremely rare cases where a client has insisted on presenting a defence and instructed us that it was truthful, but the court has found otherwise. For example, saying that another person was driving when they were not. One such client was charged with the additional offence perverting the course of justice prior to trial, and even though he changed his plea to guilty, he was still sent to prison.
Benefits of pleading not guilty
These may seem obvious, but the only way to avoid all of the consequences of a conviction are to plead not guilty.
The consequences of a conviction can be varied and of differing levels of importance to our clients. We have listed below the main concerns people raise when first making contact with us:
- A criminal record
- A lengthy disqualification (minimum of 12 months, if a first offence and a minimum of three years of a second offence)
- Fine, based on the weekly net income of the offender
- A possible community order (most commonly unpaid work)
- A possible prison sentence, although this is relatively rare and limited to cases with very high readings or repeat offenders
- Insurance increases
- Regulatory consequences for professionals such as doctors/accountants/solicitors
- Potential risk to firearms license
- Potential risk to personal license holders
- Possible impact on foreign travel to countries such as the USA
- Publicity and reputational risk – there is always a possibility for details of cases in the public arena of the magistrates’ court to end up in the local or national press
What does our data show?
Between 01 January 2021 and 31 December 2022 (2 years) we defended 198 clients facing drink or drug related charged.
We successfully defended a total of 183 alcohol/drug related cases. This means that we achieved the objective of a NOT GUILTY outcome with none of the consequences of a conviction in 92% of our defended cases. This success rate does not mean that any client who approaches us to defend the charge has a 92% chance of avoiding conviction. However, it clearly demonstrates a trend of most of our defended cases being successful.
We have considered the 15 cases we lost after trial/appeal during this same period and provided more detail about these losing cases below:
| Case Type | Specimen | Reading | Reason for Conviction | Was the drink driving course still offered? | Geographic Location of Case |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 – Driving with excess alcohol | Breath | 91 | The client’s evidence was inconsistent with the expert evidence in relation to quantity of alcohol consumed. | Yes | Blackburn Magistrates’ Court |
| 2 – Failing to provide a specimen | N/A | N/A | Court found the client understood the procedure and was drunk. | Yes | Croydon Magistrates’ Court |
| 3 – Driving with excess alcohol | Breath | 65 | The client’s own evidence was poor. Prosecutor painted him out to be a liar. | Yes | Colchester Magistrates’ Court |
| 4 – Driving with excess alcohol | Breath | 76 | The court was “not persuaded” that the client was sleepwalking. | Yes | Tameside Magistrates’ Court |
| 5 – Appeal against conviction – driving with excess alcohol | Breath | 57 | Officers’ evidence believed. | Yes | Hove Trial Centre |
| 6 – Driving with excess alcohol | Breath | 41 | Judge found officers credible, defendant not credible and disregarded forensic expert evidence. | Yes | St Albans Magistrates’ Court |
| 7 – Driving with excess alcohol | Breath | 74 | The court believed the client understood enough English. | Yes | Truro Magistrates’ Court |
| 8 – Driving with excess alcohol | Breath | 41 | Judge did not find client’s evidence as credible. | No | Leicester Magistrates’ Court |
| 9 – Driving with excess alcohol | Breath | 60 | Disregarded technical defences. | Yes | Barkingside Magistrates’ Court |
| 10 – Driving with excess drugs | Blood | 3.6 | The Judge found the result reliable. In summing up he did not deal with the burden of proof or the forensic evidence. | No | Llandudno Magistrates’ Court |
| 11 – Driving with excess alcohol | Breath | 46 | Client not believed. | Yes | Newcastle Under Lyme Magistrates’ Court |
| 12 – Driving with excess alcohol | Breath | 48 | Judge refused all submissions. | No | Leicester Magistrates’ Court |
| 13 – Driving with excess alcohol | Breath | 63 | Judge preferred the evidence of the prosecution forensic expert. | Yes | Romford Magistrates’ Court |
| 14 – Driving with excess alcohol | Breath | 83 | The police officer’s evidence is found to be “clear and compelling” (even though it is not supported by the footage). Defendant’s account rejected as “implausible and unreliable”. Defendant’s wife’s evidence “does not corroborate his account because she was not present with him at all times”. The prosecution forensic expert’s evidence was “compelling” (despite the contradictions). The evidence of the defence forensic expert was rejected because it is “highly speculative” (even though it was based on the footage and letters from Intoximeters). | Yes | Oxford And Southern Oxfordshire Magistrates’ Court |
| 15 – Driving with excess alcohol | Breath | 50 | Forensic experts’ evidence disputed. | No | Basingstoke Magistrates’ Court |
Call Us Now Free on 0800 1389 123
Call Geoffrey Miller Solicitors 24 hours 7 days a week
Geoffrey Miller Solicitors are specialists defending drivers nationwide for all types of driving offences. Call our team of expert driving offence solicitors for some free initial advice.
You can also book an appointment with Jeanette Miller a.k.a. Miss Justice using our online booking system. If Jeanette is unavailable for your preferred date and time you can book an appointment with a member of our legal team. Please have as much information about your enquiry before the call e.g. Date of Hearing, Paperwork etc.
Add comment