Once is happenstance…
IT'S RARE THAT SOMEONE is sent to jail after being convicted of drink driving for the first time.
Jail is reserved for those incidents when somebody crashes into someone and causes injury.
In those cases, the court has got to -in judge speak- “mark the severity” of the incident by delivering an ‘appropriate sentence’.
What’s an appropriate sentence will depend on the circumstances of each case but if someone is injured because of drink driving, jail is now a strong possibility.
But most drink driving incidents do not involve injuries to other people.
So, jail isn’t a realistic possibility.
The greatest penalty they’ll face is an automatic disqualification.
That’s certain, because the law requires it.
Twice is coincidence…
If they get caught a second time within a ten-year period, the disqualification now doubles.
The higher the level of alcohol in your system the higher the disqualification.
So, if you fall within the 2-year disqualification bracket the first time and get caught a second time within 10 years, your disqualification will be 4 years.
If you were in the 3-year bracket first time and got caught a second time in ten years, your disqualification will be 6 years.
"a unique feature of their job
is that they’re the only people in society
who can put other people in jail.
That’s quite a superpower"
Depending on how much time has passed between the first and second conviction, jail may possibly be a consideration.
Possibly.
For instance, if you were convicted for the first time in 2020 and were convicted a second time in 2024, a court could give serious consideration to imposing a jail sentence.
Two convictions in 4 years? Is this a pattern?
This might not actually mean that you go to jail that day, but the judge might decide to give you a suspended sentence e.g. six months suspended for 2 years.
This type of sentence means that if you get into any trouble again for the next two years, you’ll likely be sent to prison for 6 months.
Any trouble?
If you pick up a speeding ticket, does that mean it could trigger the suspended sentence?
No. Only a court conviction can trigger the reactivation of the suspended sentence.
But even then, the conviction would have to be “relevant”.
In other words, the new offence would have to have something in common with the drink driving suspended sentence.
If you were convicted of a public order offence, this might not be enough for a judge to impose that 6-month sentence because it was a non-road traffic offence.
But then again it is a criminal conviction, and a public order offence likely involves a level of intoxication, so perhaps your continuous drinking is indicating that you’re not learning your lesson?
But every case is different.
If you were convicted of drink driving in 2011 and again in 2020, jail is probably unlikely, simply because of the length of time (9 years) between the first and second conviction.
Probably.
"The judge looked at him coolly and in a quiet voice
told his lawyer that he was lucky that he had pleaded guilty
“because if he fought the case and lost,
I would have jailed him”.
Three times is enemy action…
Getting convicted of drink driving a third time places you in extreme danger.
It indicates a firm pattern of behaviour and maybe worse besides.
I was in court recently in the south of the country where a young man was before the court charged with drink driving.
He was not my client.
He had pleaded not guilty but on the day of the trial had changed his plea to guilty.
This last-minute change of plea is colloquially known by the Gardai as “doing the decent thing”.
Had he pleaded not guilty and been successful he would have been acquitted. But he decided to plead guilty.
Before he imposed sentence the judge asked the State to tell him whether the young man had any previous convictions. It turned out that he had two convictions for drink driving in the previous 4 years.
This was his third drink driving conviction in 5 years.
The judge looked at him coolly and in a quiet voice told his lawyer that he was lucky that he had pleaded guilty “because if he fought the case and lost, I would have jailed him”.
"I told him that if his client lost his appeal
he would certainly be jailed.
Was his client ready for that risk?"
THIS TAKES ME to another point.
Lawyers are frequently asked by desperate clients to fight cases “no matter what”.
That’s their right of course and I don’t discourage it, even when the case seems very difficult.
But sometimes clients with more than one conviction for drink driving only see the effect on their lives if they are disqualified again.
Naturally anyone would want to avoid that fate.
But part of your job as a lawyer is to “manage expectations”.
Let me explain.
I was at an appeal court recently where a man was contesting a drink driving conviction. Again, he was not my client. He had been convicted in the district court and was appealing this conviction.
My colleague spoke to me about his case. I asked him whether there was any “legal defence point” in the case.
He told me that there wasn’t any, that “the client just wanted to run it” because if he lost, he would face a very lengthy ban.
I asked him whether his client had any previous convictions. He told me that he had 3 previous convictions, all for drink driving.
This was his fourth and it was under appeal.
I asked him if he knew who the appeal judge was.
He said he did not.
I told him that I did and that if the client lost his appeal he would certainly be jailed.
Was his client ready for that risk?
I told him that there was a “100% certainty of that”.
This is the reality of appeals that many people don’t understand: appeal judges don’t just lower sentences, they also raise them.
In fact, some appeals judges think that some district court judges are “too lenient” and their job -in part- is to “bring some reality” to sentencing.
My colleague’s client withdrew his appeal. Even then the appeal judge toyed with the idea of jailing him.
In the end she imposed a lengthy suspended sentence, due in part to the serious work he had done to combat his addiction over the last few years.
But had he fought the case and lost it after a trial that lasted an hour, he would have been jailed.
Your job as a lawyer with a desperate client is not only to represent them to the best of your ability, but in some cases, to warn them and try save them from themselves.
In other words, you have to shake them out of the fantasy they have created for themselves about how court is going to be and make them see sense.
"Your job as a lawyer with a desperate client
is not only to represent them to the best of your ability,
but sometimes, to warn them and try save them from themselves.
You have to shake them out of the fantasy they have created for themselves
about how court is going to be and make them see sense"
THAT INVOLVES LOOKING at these things from the judge’s point of view.
They are appointed by the government.
They take their jobs very seriously.
Being a judge has historically commanded tremendous respect in the community. That’s reciprocal: judges often see it as their responsibility to keep people within their district safe and to punish those who break the law.
They also believe in the strength of court orders and the healing power of jail…in limited circumstances.
This isn’t to say that judges like putting people in jail.
They don’t.
But if you misinterpret “getting a break” (i.e. not having been jailed for previous offending) as a sign of weakness, then they’ll happily send you somewhere to think about life for a few days or weeks, or months.
When you’ve been through the court system twice already and have been banned from driving twice, getting convicted a third time is seen by some judges as you ‘giving two fingers’ to the courts.
In other words, “I don’t care about the laws of this country, I’m going to drink and drive anyway”.
No judge will stand for that.
And a unique feature of their job is that they’re the only people in society who can put other people in jail.
That’s quite a superpower.
YOU'VE BEEN GIVEN two warnings already and you’re not getting the message.
With road deaths remaining stubbornly high there is increasing pressure on judges to act against repeat drink driving offenders.
And if you’re not getting the message after the first or second occasion, what’s the point of just imposing another disqualification?
You’re probably going to ignore it anyway.
Much better to err on the side of caution and jail the person.
And what if you decide to drink and drive while disqualified and seriously injure someone in an accident?
What would the media say then?
These thoughts do cross judge’s minds from time to time. As one judge said in court this week, “contrary to popular belief, I do have a heart!”
She was being funny obviously, but it indicated how seriously she took her job.
The others are no different.
After all, the purpose of jail is not just to punish someone, its to act as a deterrent to others who might foolishly think this sort of stuff is acceptable.
You are now in the crosshairs of a tank and the turret is aimed directly at you. Extreme danger lies ahead.
To quote the infamous Auric Goldfinger, “once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action”.
Comments