Charged with driving under the influence (DUI)?

If you do decide to plead guilty to drink driving, we can assist you to get the best possible result. Our team of specialist drink driving lawyers have extensive criminal law experience and know the best way to present your drink driving case before each of the Magistrates in the state.

Before proceeding to plead guilty, the first thing we at Caldicott + Isaacs do is make sure there are no possible defences available to you.

If there are no defences, we then proceed to make certain, as best we can, that you get the absolute minimum penalty.

You weren’t driving

In some cases, the wrong person is charged with an offence. There are a variety of ways in which this can occur. It may be that there was an administrative error on the prosecution’s behalf, or, perhaps, the offender was carrying your identification on his person. Regardless, it is a complete defence to this charge if it can be shown that you were not driving the vehicle.

You had not consumed alcohol
In order to make out the charge of driving under the influence of alcohol, it must be shown that you were incapable of exercising effective control of your vehicle as a result of consuming alcohol. If you did not consume any alcohol, then you are not guilty of this offence.

You could control the vehicle
This offence of DUI relates directly to your ability to control your vehicle. If, despite having consumed alcohol, you are able to exercise effective control of your vehicle, then you will have a defence to this charge.

Your inability to control the vehicle was not related to alcohol
It may be the case that you experienced some difficulty in exercising control of your vehicle, however alcohol was not the cause. If there is evidence to support a claim that your inability to control your vehicle was the result of something other than the effects of alcohol, then you may have a defence o this charge.

Honest and reasonable mistake of fact (Proudman vs Dayman Defence)

If you genuinely believed that you were not under the influence of alcohol, and it was reasonable for you to hold this belief (e.g. it had been served to you without your knowledge), then you may have a defence to this charge.

Breath analysis conducted more than 2 hours after driving

Section 47K of the Road Traffic Act 1961 specifies a 2 hour period, commencing from the time of any alleged offence occurring, in which a breath analysis must occur. In the event that you are tested more than 2 hours after driving your vehicle, the results of the breath analysis will be inadmissible and, therefore, unable to be used for the purpose of proving the prosecution’s case.

The breath analysis machine was defective

Given that this charge deals with the presence of specific ranges of alcohol concentrations in the blood, evidence to show that the results yielded by the Breath Analysis Machine were inaccurate will serve as a defence.

Police did not comply with their legal obligations

The Road Traffic Act 1961 and the Road Traffic (Miscellaneous) Regulations 2014 outline a number of procedural conditions in relation to breath and blood analysis with which police must comply. In the event that they fail to comply with any of these requirements (e.g. refusing your request for a blood test), you may have a defence to this charge.

Yes. Unlike PCA (prescribed concentration of alcohol) or ‘drink driving’ charges, driving under the influence (DUI) does not require you to exceed the legal BAC limit. Police can charge you if your physical or mental faculties appear impaired by alcohol or drugs even with a BAC as low as 0.03 or even 0.00.

It’s important to speak with an Adelaide drink driving lawyer if you’ve been charged with this offence.

For a first offence involving a motor vehicle, the penalties include:

• Fine of $1,100 to $1,600 or up to 3 months’ imprisonment
• Minimum 12-month driver’s licence disqualification
• 6 demerit points

For a subsequent DUI offence:

• Fine of $1,900 to $2,900 or up to 6 months’ imprisonment
• Minimum 3-year disqualification from holding a driver’s licence
• 6 demerit points

Penalties are harsher if a child under 16 was in the vehicle.

Yes. DUI charges in SA can be based entirely on police observations such as slurred speech, unsteady walking, smell of alcohol, or erratic driving. Breath or blood test results are not required to prove the offence.

Police may rely on:

• Observations (e.g., bloodshot eyes, incoherence)
• Manner of driving
• Witness statements
• Inability to stand or walk steadily
• Refusal or failure to undertake a sobriety test

Under section 47K of the Road Traffic Act 1961, a breath or blood test must be conducted within 2 hours of the alleged offence. Testing outside this period renders the results inadmissible in court.

Yes. Licence disqualification is mandatory upon conviction:

• Minimum 12 months for a first offence
• Minimum 3 years for a second or subsequent offence

Possibly. Courts may consider reducing the disqualification if the offence is deemed “trifling” and exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. This requires evidence under oath and must meet strict legal criteria.

Yes. A DUI offence is a criminal conviction in South Australia. However, in some instances, your lawyer may apply for no conviction to be recorded under section 24 of the Sentencing Act 2017.

Depending on the circumstances and your record, a lawyer may seek a suspended sentence under section 96 of the Sentencing Act. This involves entering a good behaviour bond rather than serving time in prison.

DUI is based on impairment and does not rely on blood alcohol readings, whereas drink driving charges (e.g., PCA) are strictly based on measured alcohol levels. DUI is generally considered more serious and carries harsher penalties.

DUI convictions generally stay on your traffic record for at least 10 years. They may also be considered when determining subsequent offences or penalties.

Yes. Conditions such as diabetes (e.g., halitosis mimicking alcohol smell), epilepsy, brain injuries or other neurological disorders can cause symptoms mistaken for intoxication. In such cases, medical evidence may support a defence.