The fast-track trial for drink-driving: how to face it and prepare for it

When the police arrest a driver for testing positive for alcohol with a level that exceeds the criminal threshold, the case is usually handled through the fast-track trial or duty-court trial, which may be held within a matter of hours or a few days of the arrest. That speed is what makes the procedure especially demanding: there is little time to find a lawyer, review the police report and design a defence.

The fast-track trial is an abbreviated criminal procedure regulated in Articles 795 et seq. of the Criminal Procedure Act, designed to swiftly resolve less serious offences, such as drink-driving without an accident. The police draw up the report with the test results, send it to the duty court and the latter summons the detainee. Its advantage is speed; its drawback, the scarce time to prepare the defence.

The process has several phases. The police phase, in which the report is drawn up, the central document recording the results of both measurements and the circumstances of the checkpoint; it is advisable to request a copy of it. The legal assistance, with a duty lawyer appointed by the court if you do not have your own lawyer; if it is possible to contact a trusted specialist lawyer before the hearing, it is highly advisable. And the appearance before the duty court, in which the judge reports the facts and asks whether the accused acknowledges them and is willing to enter a plea agreement.

The decision between a plea agreement and a trial is the most important of the process. The plea agreement is the arrangement by which the accused acknowledges the facts and accepts the proposed penalty in exchange for closing the case without a trial. Its advantages are significant: immediate certainty, a reduction of the penalty compared with what the prosecutor would request at trial, greater ease in replacing prison with a fine or community service, and lower cost.

But a plea agreement is not always advisable: a trial should be held when there are irregularities in the report that may nullify the evidence, when the level is very close to the criminal threshold and there are doubts about the measurement, or when circumstances such as the taking of medications that could have altered the result concur. Deciding requires a technical analysis of the report before the accused makes a statement. If the oral trial is held, the prosecution’s main evidence is the result of the measurements; the defence may attack it by questioning the calibration of the breathalyser, pointing out irregularities in the protocol or alleging circumstances that affected the result.

In the hours beforehand it is advisable to review the report in detail, checking that both measurements, the times and the identification of the approved breathalyser are recorded, to recall and document all the circumstances of the checkpoint and to gather useful documentation, such as the leaflet for any medication being taken.

The disqualification from driving is practically inevitable when the level exceeds the criminal threshold, with a minimum of one year; driving during the suspension constitutes a new offence. The prison sentence for drink-driving without an accident or recidivism is usually suspended when it does not exceed two years and there is no record. Prior negotiation of the penalty with the prosecution, before the hearing, may result in more favourable conditions.