A recent article by Neil Poornan in the Scottish Press indicated that 70% of drink drivers apprehended by the police in the first 3 weeks of a recent drink drive campaign in Scotland were arrested between 6:00am and 10:00am

Chief Superintendent Kate Thomson said: “During the first three weeks of this campaign, over 100 offenders detected for drink driving were under twice the legal limit, and over 70 offences were detected between 0600hrs and 1000hrs, classed as the morning after for offenders.” She reiterated the view that ALL drink driving is a criminal offence and it cannot be excused simply because you failed to understand that you would still be over the drink drive limit the day after consuming alcohol.

This demonstrates very clearly that there is still a message that needs to get through to Scottish drivers. The risk of drink driving the day following  a drinking session are very real and significant and they carry the same mandatory ban for at least 12 months.

The Glasgow Herald article stated..”Offenders with alcohol-related problems in the west of Scotland will be fitted with electronic tags that can detect whether they have broken a ban on drinking while serving a community sentence.

The “sobriety bracelets”, which are usually tagged to the ankle, record the wearer’s alcohol intake by measuring air and perspiration emissions from the skin every 30 minutes.

They detect blood alcohol levels as low as 0.02% and can tell when the alcohol was consumed before electronically transmitting that information to a base monitoring station.

The equipment is to be introduced to the west of Scotland if funding is secured from the Scottish Government and will be used as part of a pilot scheme for violent offenders receiving community sentences to be undertaken by Strathclyde Police’s Violence Reduction Unit (VRU).

A study of prisoners by Strathclyde Police in 2007 found approximately two-thirds of those arrested at the scene of a crime were under the influence of alcohol, with the VRU spending the past year exploring ways to restrict alcohol consumption by offenders.

As part of the study, 200 offenders would be placed on a period of complete sobriety for 120 days, with an additional month dedicated to a “stepwise” programme to introduce moderate alcohol consumption, if the offender requests it.

The Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor, or Scram, hit the headlines when Freaky Friday star Lohan was fitted with one last year after she failed to show up for a probation hearing relating to a 2007 drink-driving case because she was in France.

American courts have ordered Scram devices on thousands of defendants released on bond and awaiting trial for alcohol-related offences, those on probation, and under-age drinkers.

Criminal justice professionals in the US report high compliance rates, at least while these people remain in the court system, and have claimed it has an impact on the size of the prison population.

However, many lawyers have argued that, despite widespread use, scientific information is lacking on the device’s reliability and believe false positive readings are also a risk.

Some have claimed baked goods such as sourdough English muffins can cause the body to produce its own alcohol, while online bloggers recommend “scamming the Scram” by placing luncheon meat, tape or paper between the ankle and the sensor or plunging the leg into an ice-cold bath to prevent perspiration.

Alcohol Monitoring Systems Inc, which manufactures the device, insists such ploys do not work. A spokeswoman has described the devices as “like a breathalyser for your ankle”.

Details of the plans for Scotland emerged this week during a meeting of Strathclyde’s governing body, where Chief Constable Steve House said the force had applied for around £150,000 from the Scottish Government for the technology to run the scheme, adding it was “an exciting development” but without ministerial monies they would not be purchased.

Mike Nellis is emeritus professor of criminal and community justice at Strathclyde University and has a particular interest in electronic tagging devices. He said the authorities in the Netherlands and Sweden had considered similar schemes but this was the first he was aware of in Europe.

Mr Nellis said: “I welcome the fact this experiment is going to take place even though I don’t think the science is at all certain. It’s an extremely useful tool but not foolproof.

“There’s bound to be court cases in Scotland where any lawyer worth his salt will challenge the science. But the link between alcohol and violence is cast iron and we’ve got to be imaginative and adventurous.

“Electronic monitoring is only part of a strategy, but in this case I’ve got to question expectations of keeping hardened drinkers away from alcohol for 120 days.”

Detective Chief Superintendent John Carnochan, co-director of the VRU, said: “Alcohol-related violence is a huge problem for Scotland and the VRU are fully supportive of all measures to tackle it.”

The Glasgow Herald reported that the move to create a tougher drink-driving limit north of the Border were backed by the Law Society of Scotland – despite potential to cause confusion for motorists.

Speaking after giving evidence to the Scotland Bill Committee, Michael Clancy, director of law reform at the society, said they were “broadly in agreement with the changes to the powers to allow Scottish drink-driving limits in Scotland” but warned that “having different limits across the UK could cause confusion amongst motorists”.

Personally I do not think there will be any confusion that will cause motorists difficulty. The present confusion occurs because motorists think that there is a “Two drink” limit. ie That the present law allows you to have two drinks and to drive. With the proliferation of strong beers and wine that is of 14 -15% alcohol times have changed and motorists need to be aware of the dangers of drinking ANY alcohol and driving. It therefore makes a great deal of sense to reduce the limit to an amount that will allow for residual alcohol (From night before etc) and present a strong message to general public that drink driving is simply not acceptable in Scotland.

As for the notion that there would be some kind of cross border “confusion” that is simply nonsense. We already have the same Road Traffic Law legislation in both countries and there are times when it is interpreted differently. The simple message that needs to put across is that “Drink Driving is Illegal”

Sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 provides the procedure which must be followed by the police when samples of blood/urine are taken.

The admissibility of those specimens as evidence against a motorist depends upon the procedures being followed correctly. We always seek the 4:8:1 form that should be a record of the procedures followed and often therefore acts as the cornerstone of our cross examination in such cases. We will also seek sight of the EC/IR intoximeter log to ensure that it was working properly on the day of the given sample.

As a suspected drink driver you have a legal obligation to provide a laboratory sample when one of the four reasons set out at section 7(3) occurs. BUT before such a sample is taken the driver needs to be provided with certain information by the police:

• he has to tell the motorist the reason under terms of s.7(3) why breath specimens cannot be taken or used in this matter;
• he should tell the driver that in those circumstances he is required to give a sample of blood or urine, but that the officer will decide which. Many drivers believe that they have the choice but this is wrong, the choice is with the police officer dealing with the case.
• he must warn the driver that a failure to provide the sample required may result in prosecution;
• and if he has asked for a sample of blood,
• he should ask the driver if there is any medical reason why a specimen cannot or should not be taken by a doctor.

When, in the circumstances set out at section 8(2), a driver may choose to replace a breath specimen by supplying a laboratory sample,

The officer should inform the driver of the nature of the option open to him and what will be involved if he exercises it;

• he must inform the driver that the specimen of breath which he has given containing the lower proportion of alcohol exceeds the statutory limit; but does not exceed 50 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath;
• he should inform the driver that in the circumstances he is entitled to claim to have this specimen replaced by a specimen of blood or urine if he wishes; We have heard countless tales of drivers claiming that the police officer told them not to bother as it would serve no real benefit to them this is rubbish, you should, where the opportunity arises ask for a blood sample to be provided. If there are medical reason why you cannot give blood then make sure that these reasons are stated and recorded.
• The police officer should ask the driver if there are any medical reasons why a sample of blood cannot or should not be taken. Having read the above if you think the procedures for you were any different then get in touch and we may be able to win your case and save your driving licence.