Forum menu
I like alcohol free beer and, increasingly, it’s just as good as boozy beers. So much so that recently when I got a new one at my local tap room, I had to go to the bar and double check there wasn’t a mix up as I was driving.
so this got me thinking. If I ordered alcohol free beer, had a receipt saying so but brewery mixed up and put the wrong barrel on and admitted such, would that be considered mitigation if I got stopped for DUI? Purely hypothetical, I’m not trying to line up excuses! Just genuinely curious how this scenario might play out in court.
No.
It might mean a smaller fine but the ban is mandatory and strict liabity iirc
So much so that recently when I got a new one at my local tap room, I had to go to the bar and double check there wasn’t a mix up
What was it you were drinking?
Oh and DD is DD no matter what.
Atlantic Brewing Co. do a cracking zero alcohol IPA.
Edit: Might be Athletic Brewing Co.
I think you'd be stuffed in court.
The best thing (imo) is most AFB's are still bottled / canned. So I always check it on the bar before stepping away.
There's only one pub I can think of that serves decent alco-free on tap and it weirds me out even when I see it being poured.
Ghost Rider at Tempest
Mrsstu and I once got really bad hangovers from Slight Of Hand Dark AF.
Makes you think...
I'm sure Emma would stand up in court and defend you that she'd accidentally given you a couple of 7%ers rather than a couple of AF's. 🤣
so this got me thinking. If I ordered alcohol free beer, had a receipt saying so but brewery mixed up and put the wrong barrel on and admitted such, would that be considered mitigation if I got stopped for DUI?
Yes, mitigation, not a defence.
If you're over the limit then you are, but there's a special reason for the Court not to consider disqualification
DPP v Robinson (2003) explains an unsuccessful use of mitigation because he didn't ask the question https://vlex.co.uk/vid/robinson-v-dpp-793058041
A high alcohol reading would allow the Court to ignore the special reason that you submit
Saying "DUI" and drinking from "aluminum" cans should be an offence in the UK 🙂
I might have the terminology wrong, but I think it's what's known as an 'absolute offence' or something similar, a.k.a if you are over the limit, you are automatically guilty and that's that.
There may be mitigation in extenuating circumstances for a 'lesser' punishment - but you'd still be found guilty - and I don't think "the boozer told me there was no booze in my booze" would go down very well as mitigation!!!
I might have the terminology wrong, but I think it's what's known as an 'absolute offence' or something similar, a.k.a if you are over the limit, you are automatically guilty and that's that.
Yes and no. Driving over the limit is absolute. In charge and over the limit has a statutory defence (both s5 Road Traffic Act 1988)
I might have the terminology wrong, but I think it's what's known as an 'absolute offence' or something similar, a.k.a if you are over the limit, you are automatically guilty and that's that.
Yes and no. Driving over the limit is absolute. In charge and over the limit has a statutory defence (both s5 Road Traffic Act 1988)
Yes sorry, I didn't think to make that distinction.
For example, my car keys are on my house keys, and if I'm not in my house they are in my pocket so technically (drunk or not) I'm always in charge of my car, y'know, it being my car and all that!*
*Unless I'm round a friends house for one of thier 'special parties' that involve all the guests putting their keys into a fruit bowl 😀
I'm quite an enthusiastic drinker.
The only day of the week I tend not to drink is Tuesday, which ironically is the day I spend all evening in the pub. But it's when I drive down and take my guitar and stuff to join in the jam night. They always have Guinness 0.0. I probably have 4 pints of that. When I come to leave I feel properly wobbly, but I guess that's just muscle memory.
Where I park is right outside the cop shop and I often wonder what I'd say if I was stopped and asked "have you been drinking sir?"
I suppose the entertainment value of saying "4 pints of Guinness" would wear off at 2 am, shivering in a cell waiting for my B sample to exonerate me.
I had a long chat with a supplier about this for a community pub that I’m involved with. I was really keen for there to be a decent selection of non-alcoholic beers on tap, and basically for most pubs it’s more trouble than it’s worth for exactly this reason. The non-alcoholic beers need to be totally segregated with the possibility of accidentally connecting a normal beer to a non-alcoholic tap close to zero.
It’s not just keyed connections on the lines; they can’t even run in the same python. It’s a massive pain in the arse and we’ve compromised on a dedicated fridge. Most pubs don’t even do that. Guinness 0.0 is the exception, but they still need to run a unique line.
Distinct impression that I had is that while you would still be personally prosecuted for drink driving, the litigation book would be thrown at the supplying pub.
They always have Guinness 0.0. I probably have 4 pints of that. When I come to leave I feel properly wobbly, but I guess that's just muscle memory.
I saw an interesting experiment on TV about the phenomenon of being 'passively drunk'- it involved a social scenario where people were drinking, but amongst them were people who were unaware that they were drinking zero alcohol drinks. (as I remember there was some sort of decoy group task preceding it and the real experiment began when they the were socialising afterwards so people didn't think they were part of an observed experiment) Those people showed much the same reduced co-ordination, focus and attention as those that were drinking and yet the reason for that could only have been psychological - people somehow succumbing to the mood in the room.
I think of the various zero alcohol beers Guiness seems to be one of the ones that most readily 'passes' for being alcoholic, (after the first few sips I think you stop noticing the difference) and I wonder to what extent you pick up subconsciously on other cues from drinking it, like it being very filling and savoury compared to soft drinks for instance, and also are in the company of people who are drinking who's behaviour will subtly change through the evening and your own behaviour changes to match, even though all you've really done is drank a lot of calorific liquid.
Distinct impression that I had is that while you would still be personally prosecuted for drink driving, the litigation book would be thrown at the supplying pub.
Trying to demonstrate to a court that the pub mixed up the drinks order is a bit of a tall order though? Otherwise anyone caught drink driving would just say 'I asked the pub for a zero, not my fault if they gave me full fat', etc.
As the driver of the car it's your responsibility. Same as making sure folk are belted up, etc.
If for whatever reason you're over the "limit" be it too much sherry trifle or an extra scoop of a boozy tiramisu then an excuse of "I didn't realise I was drunk" isn't going to cut it. Drunk in charge = buck stops with the driver.
and yet the reason for that could only have been psychological
I am not sure that is necessarily the case. My understanding is that your brain through association can cause physical changes to your body and trigger the production of chemicals.
For example apparently the brain can cause a surge of dopamine, or other chemicals, in someone with a drug dependency just in anticipation that the person is about to take the substance and only in the process of preparing it.
Another example is Pavlo's dogs and how they salivated in anticipation of food even though none was in sight and certainly none was in their mouths.
It seems plausible to me that things could physically alter in your brain as would normally occur under the influence of alcohol. I am fairly sure that the placebo effect can cause physical changes to the body - that's been pointed out to me on here before, It would be interesting to hear from someone whose area of expertise covers this.
Btw Guinness 0.0 has surprisingly low calorific value.
Btw Guinness 0.0 has surprisingly low calorific value.
I wonder if its possible to get passively fat 🙂
I wonder if its possible to get passively fat 🙂
One or the other if the Dr Van Tulleken twins has some interesting stuff on YouTube about Diet Coke, which is calorie free and makes you fat IIRC.
Drunk in charge = buck stops with the driver.
But someone else spiking your drinks that you believe to be non-alcoholic is strong mitigation, as others have said.
It's almost like people don't know what mitigation means. The offence may be absolute but the sentencing is flexible.
Trying to demonstrate to a court that the pub mixed up the drinks order is a bit of a tall order though? Otherwise anyone caught drink driving would just say 'I asked the pub for a zero, not my fault if they gave me full fat', etc.
True, but most people watch their drinks being poured (especially so if ordering a non-alcoholic beer from a tap) so the mix-up would need to happen behind the scenes, which as I've said is really challenging to screw up.
Drunk in charge = buck stops with the driver.
But someone else spiking your drinks that you believe to be non-alcoholic is strong mitigation, as others have said.
It's almost like people don't know what mitigation means. The offence may be absolute but the sentencing is flexible.
Mandatory years ban iirc. No chance of a shorter one
Mandatory years ban iirc. No chance of a shorter one
Except if you can successfully argue a « special reason » such as drink spiked. There are plenty of specialist solicitors who make their livelihood from that sort of thing.
I’m not saying you would definitely avoid a ban in the case the OP described, but if you had very strong evidence (eg video from the bar of your drinks being poured only from the alcohol free tap), and a good lawyer, you might do.
I've been drinking 0% all year and the other day I had a normal pint of about 5% lager and it was like a tranquiliser. I almost fell asleep in the chair.
There's no way I could drink one accidentally and not notice now.
Minimum ban is a year. No smartness lawyer can get you less..
Its strict liability with a minimum sentance. No matter how the alcohol gets in your system its a minimum of onevyears ban if you are over the limit
Mandatory years ban iirc. No chance of a shorter one
Special reason mitigation can be either a shorter disqualification or no disqualification at all
Source? I checked the guidelines. Minimum one year ban is what i found for any of the 3 possible offenses
Hang on
Iirc you are a cop?
Minimum ban is a year. No smartness lawyer can get you less..
I'm not saying you're wrong, I don't know. But remember on matters legal, Scottish Law and English Law are different things.
A swift google seems to suggest that mitigating circumstances can avoid you a ban. Spiked drinks may be one of them, as is thinking you were drinking 0%. I suspect your evidence would need to be very solid and you would have to have not realised that you were pissed.
I used to work in a bar, and remember a chap getting 'right pi$$ed' on J20....
Makes you think!
additionally, i've been in a grumpy mood, drank loads, and not felt one iota drunk.
DrP
Mrsstu and I once got really bad hangovers from Slight Of Hand Dark AF.
Makes you think...
The "boozy" taste in beers comes from heavier alcohols, that's why column distilled and charcoal filtered vodka tastes sharp but shouldn't taste boozy. Whereas Whiskey has that 'warming' boozy taste because it's distilled in a single pot. Ditto and to an even greater extent Rum. The less selective distillation means more of the other stuff makes it into the final product.
If you wanted a low alcohol beer to taste stronger you'd probably mash the beer at a high temperature to preserve some longer chained sugars which would result in that same warming feeling, along with a warm rapid fermentation with a very fruity/ester yeast to maximize all the side fermentations. Basically you're trying to make what should be all the brewing mistakes that you're normally trying to minimize when making 5% beer in order to get the flavors that people associate with brewed beer but without 95% of the actual fermentation.
n.b. there are different process for making low alcohol beer, some are brewed to 0.5%, some have the alcohol extracted from a full strength version. Guinness is the latter, but I don't know if they tweak the recipe as well to offset what's lost in the extraction.
When I come to leave I feel properly wobbly, but I guess that's just muscle memory.
Placebo effect aside there is also the sugar. It's lower calorie but higher sugar / carbs. Still far better for you though.
I suspect your evidence would need to be very solid and you would have to have not realised that you were pissed.
But you don't have to be 'pissed' to be over the legal limit. It could be quite conceivable to have, say, two pints of what someone thought was 0% beer then be pulled over and be found to be over the limit.
Minimum ban is a year. No smartness lawyer can get you less..
Its strict liability with a minimum sentance. No matter how the alcohol gets in your system its a minimum of onevyears ban if you are over the limit
There IS scope within the Road Traffic Offenders Act (s34(1)) for the court to not apply the minimum ban. Timba has included a link for the appeal court where it was attempted and was unsuccessful, it won't take too much hunting to find examples where it has worked - but every case is unique. It requires you to believe (and convince the court you believed) you could not be be over the limit (usually because you were unaware you were drinking at all) and for the court to consider it reasonable in ALL the circumstances that you would believe that. The test is high, but not impassable, the smartness of your lawyer won't be the key factor in your success, the credibility of your story, the reliability of the witnesses you call etc will be critical. Its possibly that two people in the same bar on the same night both mis-sold AF beer could get different outcomes.
Can no one do a simple web search these days? What’s the point of just spouting rubbish all day when it’s so easy to find out the truth?
If for whatever reason you're over the "limit" be it too much sherry trifle or an extra scoop of a boozy tiramisu then an excuse of "I didn't realise I was drunk" isn't going to cut it. Drunk in charge = buck stops with the driver
I can see why those defences fail, the shear amount of sherry that would be required in the trifle to put someone over the limit after eating a normal amount would surely be enough to stop it setting? It's clearly a lie. And if not then there's a clear onus on the driver to have asked how much booze was in their Christmas pudding after the first mouthful blew their head off.
However what if it was properly not their fault. E.g. being date-raped and driving is clearly a different legal kettle of fish to smoking weed and then getting behind the wheel or even just taking some codeine. A difference between should have known you were under the influence Vs couldn't know. Probably only a defence where it's marginally over the limit (e.g. in Scotland would you really know if someone slipped you an actual pint Vs a 0.0 one and then you got pulled over?), after 2+ you'd know you were inebriated.
WRT mitigation, there was a case quite a few years ago where someone was over the limit, despite modest but sufficient input, and several hours to metabolise. So a reasonable expectation of being well under the limit. The driver was over the limit and tests subsequently revealed they had liver cancer. Of course they received a ban.
Strict liability with perhaps mitigation. Proving you had purchased and drunk ONLY the alcohol free beer is a hiding to nothing.
Hang on
Iirc you are a cop?
I was. Retired a decade ago
Scottish Law and English Law are different things.
Yes, my assumption was that Frank is in E&W, but he's Irish and living in Scotland, so my bad.
However, the Scotland Act 2012 only changed DD alcohol limits, the base law (s5 RTA 1988) is the same UK-wide. The Road Traffic Offenders Act (s34) is E,W&S only (not NI)
In practice that might make a special reason mitigation more difficult because massively over the (lower) limit can be grounds for a court to ignore your mitigation. Discuss 🙂
There was a case in Belgium whereby a chap had a rare condition meaning his body produced alcohol on its own. So he was always pished and wasn't aware.
He got off with the charge..
I suspect if you can categorically prove you have 'special reason' defense then whilst you'll be convicted, it's unlikely you'll get much of a ban
Interesting question however. Imagine you were a driver and lost your job. Could you sue the bar if you could prove it was their error
WRT mitigation, there was a case quite a few years ago where someone was over the limit, despite modest but sufficient input, and several hours to metabolise. So a reasonable expectation of being well under the limit.
Medical condition or not, metabolising alcohol is impossible to predict for most of us, although scientists with your specialisms (IIRC) can have a pretty accurate go.
Sex, physical size, food consumed, fizzy v still alcohol, etc, all effect time taken. Simple answer is don't drink and drive, especially in Scotland
There's a taproom near me where I can cycle and a mate drives, we had to double check a while back as the AF was so good (tap based not canned/bottled) that it was hard to know if it was the right beer.
Interesting question however. Imagine you were a driver and lost your job. Could you sue the bar if you could prove it was their error
My next thought following Flaperon's post^^
Distinct impression that I had is that while you would still be personally prosecuted for drink driving, the litigation book would be thrown at the supplying pub.
Not something that I've ever considered before, but if the driver was involved in a collision as a bus driver, might you get the bus insurer having a go at the publican's insurer for 53 injuries plus a bus? Ditto their union?
alcohol is impossible to predict for most of us, although scientists with your specialisms (IIRC) can have a pretty accurate go.
Actually it's pretty easy because the dose (grammes) is so high that metabolism is saturated - and hence linear at about one unit per hour. It's why back-calculation is allowed to predict what you would have been at the time of an accident. Alcoholics can function at high blood alcohol levels, but they don't metabolise it any faster than nonalcoholics (sometimes slower due to cirrhosis).
BTW if someone is convicted of driving at 3-4x the England & Wales limit, they are a chronic alcoholic. Most people can barely function, let alone drive a car at such levels.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/alcohol-back-calculation-for-road-traffic-investigations
Obviously, waving around a receipt for alcohol free beer won't cut any ice at court. Otherwise it would be a useful get out of jail free card for actual drink drivers. You could neck a few pints of zero alcohol Guinness and neglect to mention the whisky chasers, or just offer up the receipt for your mate's pint. There's a good reason why there aren't many defences for drink driving.
The only obscure one that springs to mind is the delightful 'auto-brewery syndrome', where your dodgy gut microbiome basically makes its own alcohol out of sugars. Even then, you'd have to prove you had it, and it would have to be remarkably severe to potentially get you over the DD threshold. In which case DVLA would probably have your licence off you anyway.
BTW if someone is convicted of driving at 3-4x the England & Wales limit, they are a chronic alcoholic. Most people can barely function, let alone drive a car at such levels.
What actual amount would 3-4x be, in pints? (Or bottles of wine, or whatever! 😀 )