In The Sign of Four, Sherlock Holmes says, “when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”.
Holmes was talking about the rational steps an investigator might take in getting at the truth. After all, if impossibility is removed, then the only thing that is left is the possible.
Makes sense.
But what does that have to do with drink driving?
Well, there are some things that are impossible when it comes to road traffic law too.
Like avoiding a disqualification if you’ve been convicted.
You can’t do it.
"Hand wringing is common
Teeth-gnashing is not unheard of either.
The conversation eventually moves towards the “elephant in the room”,
the rather grubby topic of “technicalities” that they used to dislike so much"
If you are convicted of drink driving, then you will be disqualified.
It’s impossible not to be.
That’s because the law says so.
And judges must interpret and enforce the law.
Therefore, if you want to avoid that impossibility -and everyone does- then the focus must be on the possible.
Like winning.
Winning is the truth, at least for you, because it eliminates the impossible.
Let’s deal with what happens if you lose.
That’s simple. You’ll go off the road, which is a disaster for most people.
You will lose your licence.
While I don’t lose sight of this risk and never minimise it, I do not dwell on it.
I focus on winning.
Most people arrested have never been in trouble before.
One question preoccupies them after they've been released: am I allowed to drive?
Yes.
This might seem obvious to most lawyers but it’s a valid question.
Once you’re arrested and released from the Garda station in Ireland all your property is returned to you.
That includes your driver’s licence and keys.
The police don't have any power to hold your property when you're released. Your property includes your wallet, keys, mobile phone and driver’s licence.
You are still entitled to drive until your case is finished.
Provided you’re insured.
So, while you're free to drive until your trial date, you will be disqualified if you are convicted.
A disqualification is mandatory if you're convicted.
That’s absolutely certain.
As the idea of being put off the road is unthinkable that leaves people with one alternative: to fight the charges.
That decision usually leads to another question: if I fight the case and lose will I get a worse penalty?
No. Maybe a higher fine, but not a higher disqualification.
Another question leads from that: will the Judge be mad at me if I lose?
No. Why would they?
Eliminating the impossible
No two cases are the same but drink driving cases are technical, extremely so.
This leads to the belief among some people, often upstanding, law-abiding folk, that if someone is acquitted that this is because of a “technicality”.
This is usually accompanied by an air of disappointment, as if society has somehow been robbed, that the guilty have gotten away with it, again.
They dislike what they see as people ‘escaping justice’, whatever that means.
They hold this view quite firmly, are convinced of the justness of their belief and will try hard to convince you too.
Until their son or daughter is arrested for drink driving.
Now things change.
This upstanding citizen now approaches a lawyer and implores them to “do something, anything” to help their unfortunate offspring.
You see, their child is different you know, is a good sort, doesn’t deserve such a harsh penalty because as parents they know how hard they have worked all their lives.
And besides, their child has never so much as picked up a parking ticket, never mind gone to court.
It’s just unfair…
Hand wringing is common at times like this.
Teeth-gnashing is not unheard of either.
The conversation eventually moves towards the “elephant in the room”, the rather grubby topic of “technicalities” that they used to dislike so much.
You see, they disliked technicalities in the past.
Had been dead set against them actually.
Had told everyone as much.
But times change and their views have “matured”.
They quite like technicalities now, especially if they can help their loved one…
Grubby technicalities
There are no such things as technicalities.
They don’t exist.
There is just the law.
Either the law is followed, or it is not.
If it is then the State may find it easier to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
But if it’s not, if the law is not followed, then no Judge will be satisfied to convict someone, no matter how drunk they may have been.
That’s because before a judge can convict you, they must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the case against you has been proven.
"There are no such things as technicalities.
They dont exist.
There is just the law"
If you are acquitted in such circumstances, you haven’t won because of a technicality.
You have won because the State didn’t prove their case to the satisfaction of the judge.
We are a country of laws for a reason.
This is why so many multinationals operate in Ireland.
They don’t set up here because of the weather. It’s partly because we have laws which are enforced by a strong judiciary.
Some people may not always like the outcome of a court case but that is the price we pay for living in a democracy.
In some parts of the world if the government is angry at you, they’ll bring some bogus prosecution against you.
Your fate is then in the hands of specially appointed judges who are ‘rubber stamps’ for the State.
Good luck getting a fair trial there.
Sherlock Holmes was not wrong when he concluded that “when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”.
Truth is sometimes subjective.
When it comes to facing drink driving charges, the truth is that most people feel they don’t deserve to be thrown off the road for one mistake.
I agree.
Winning is the truth, at least for you.
Comments