go

Drink-driver claimed his orange juice was 'spiked'

Thatcham motorist will plead 'special reasons' to avoid 12 month driving ban

John Garvey

Reporter:

John Garvey

Contact:

Mobile

Court

A THATCHAM man caught drink-driving has claimed his drinks were spiked.

Tests showed Graham Escott, who lives in the High Street, had 65mcg of alcohol per 100ml of breath in his system. The legal limit is 35mcg.

At Reading Magistrates’ Court on Thursday, June 22, the 57-year-old’s solicitor, Andrew Storch, told magistrates that his client had already admitted driving on the M27 at Eastleigh, Hampshire, on September 10 last year, during a previous court hearing in Portsmouth.

But he said Mr Escott would contest the usually mandatory driving ban of a minimum of 12 months by arguing “special reasons”.

In certain circumstances, defendants convicted of drink-driving offences may be able to have any mandatory period of driving disqualification significantly reduced or totally avoided.

Mr Storch explained: “Mr Escott didn’t realise that what he was drinking was, in fact, alcohol.

“There is an alleged admission that he told police ‘I knew I shouldn’t have been driving’, but it’s not clear what that means.”

He said the defence would call an expert witness to give evidence that “if he was only drinking what he thought he was drinking, he wouldn’t have been over the limit”.

Mr Storch claimed that “the prosecution accepts the maths involved but not the premise on which they are based”.

Joanna McGlew, prosecuting, said: “The crown’s case is that the defendant made admissions at the roadside.

“The defence’s expert report is based on assumptions and no details have been provided about the size of the glasses from which drinks were consumed.

“We don’t accept it.”

The court heard that the case would largely be decided on Mr Escott’s character and credibility.

Mr Storch said his client had been unable to attend that day’s hearing because his leg had been crushed in a work-related accident.

The court adjourned sentencing until October 2 when the ‘special reasons’ argument will be tested.

Mr Escott was meanwhile given unconditional bail.


Mr Storch added: “The special reasons argument will involve laced drinks.”

Leave your comment

Share your opinions on Newbury Weekly News

Characters left: 1000

Article comments

  • Baggy

    07/07/2017 - 06:06

    He should be given a jail punishment for lying to the court. He needs to get help for his drinking and loose his licence for ever. He could have killed someone.

    Reply

  • grumpy

    05/07/2017 - 13:01

    How would you not know if you were drunk ? What nonsense

    Reply

News

Newbury explosions 'could have been catastrophic'
News

Newbury explosions 'could have been catastrophic'

Fire crews say things could have been dangerous if swift action wasn't taken

 
Court
News

Serial shoplifter dodges prison yet again

Another suspended sentence is added instead

8comments

 
News

Pamber cattery is put on hold

 
News

Thatcham depot staff raise more than £6,000 for colleague

 
News

Explosions heard in Newbury