John Thomas Kaleekal, 53, was charged with drink-driving in Colborne Road, St Peter Port, last December after he was arrested at his home nearby.
Another motorist had called the Joint Emergency Services Control Centre to say that the defendant had pulled out in front of him near Frossard House. Officers attended at the defendant’s home 10 minutes later, at about 10.15pm.
A test at the Police Station found there were 56mcg of alcohol per 100 millilitres of his breath when the legal limit is 35.
He raised what is colloquially known as ‘the hip flask’ defence – namely that it was alcohol he consumed after driving that put him over the limit.
The defence commissioned an expert report which found that based on the defendant’s claim that he had drunk between 350 and 400ml of alcohol after arriving home, his argument was plausible.
Judge Gary Perry concluded that like many untruths, much of the defendant’s evidence had been based on real events that evening but he had not told the truth about what he had had to drink after getting home. He had not mentioned his post-driving alcohol consumption to police immediately and had been evasive when giving evidence.
He told officers that he had drunk ‘two shots’ after getting home but then changed this to two ‘big’ or ‘large’ shots thereafter. At the Police Station he said he had only drunk two pints of lager.
In court he said he had drunk 300, 400 or 500ml of vodka at home. Despite the considerable amount he had to drink, he was able to recall that the bottle he drank from, which was not a vodka bottle, had been full with the spirit when he opened it.
‘I think that what he provided to the expert was, at its most generous, an attempt to account for the alcohol he’d consumed, but more likely he had worked out exactly what he needed to say,’ said Judge Perry.
‘He had forgotten that when he gave evidence today, saying he had drunk up to half a litre which would substantially change, potentially, the calculations of the expert.’
For that reason, said the judge, he could not rely on the expert’s evidence or the account that the defendant’s doctor had given the expert, and so he had no hesitation in being sure that he was guilty of the offence.
Kaleekal was fined £1,000 and banned from driving for two years.