It is one of the most frequently heard stories in drink driving cases: a driver returns home, opens a beer, and a few minutes later the police are at the door with information about a collision in the car park. The breathalyser shows 0.8 per mille. The driver says: “But I only started drinking after I got back.” Will a court believe it?
The answer is: possibly – but only where there is evidence to support it.
Why This Defence Is Difficult
Courts and law enforcement start from the presumption that the breathalyser or blood test result reflects the driver’s state at the time of driving. It is the defendant who must rebut that presumption – and must do so with concrete evidence, not with a bare assertion.
The defence based on post-drive alcohol consumption is frequently abused. Prosecutors and judges are well aware that the reality is often precisely the reverse – drivers drink before driving and then claim, once stopped, that they only drank afterwards. This means courts approach this version of events with considerable caution and require solid supporting evidence.
When This Defence Has a Realistic Prospect of Success
A line of defence based on alcohol being consumed after the drive can succeed where specific conditions are met.
Witnesses. People who saw the driver sober immediately before or during the journey and who can confirm when and where the drinking began. Witness testimony is one of the most important pieces of evidence in such cases.
Proof of purchase. A receipt showing the time of the alcohol purchase after the drive has ended can be a key piece of evidence. CCTV footage from a shop or petrol station recording the moment of purchase is even better.
The passage of time. Where a significant period elapsed between the end of the drive and the test, there is a physical possibility that the alcohol giving the recorded result was consumed in that interval.
A toxicology expert’s opinion. A specialist can assess whether the declared amount of alcohol consumed within a given time could have produced the result recorded at the test. An expert’s opinion is frequently the decisive piece of evidence in such cases – it either supports or excludes the version presented by the driver.
An example from our practice: a driver arrived at a friend’s home and they drank several beers together over the course of the evening. Several hours after the driver’s arrival, police attended following a neighbour’s complaint. The test showed a high reading. Three witnesses confirmed the driver had arrived sober, a shop receipt confirmed the purchase of beer after the time of arrival, and an expert confirmed that the amount of alcohol consumed in the time indicated would have produced a similar result. The case ended in an acquittal.
What This Defence Does Not Cover
The “hair of the dog” myth. An argument that occasionally arises goes: “I drank a lot yesterday and had a bit this morning to help me recover.” This is not only a weak line of defence – it is a physical misunderstanding. Consuming alcohol after a previous drinking session does not accelerate sobriety; it introduces a further dose of alcohol into the system. No toxicology expert will confirm this and no court will accept the argument.
Absence of evidence. A bare assertion of “I drank after the drive” without any supporting material is not enough. Without witnesses, receipts, recordings or an expert’s opinion, this line of defence is practically impossible to sustain.
What to Do If You Actually Drank After the Drive
If alcohol was genuinely consumed after the journey ended, immediate action is critical.
Secure witnesses – ask those present to remember the exact time of your arrival and the moment you began drinking. Keep receipts and any other proof of alcohol purchase showing the time of the transaction. Request a blood test – it is more precise than a breathalyser and gives an expert more data to work with. Contact a lawyer as soon as possible – the first hours after the incident are critical for securing evidence that may be lost with the passage of time.
An Important Note
This line of defence is only legitimate where it reflects the true facts – where the driver genuinely consumed alcohol after the drive ended. Presenting a false version of events to a court constitutes the making of a false statement, which is a criminal offence carrying a custodial sentence of up to eight years (Article 233 of the Criminal Code).
Contact Us
If you have been stopped and are saying that you consumed alcohol after the drive ended, it is important to consult a lawyer as soon as possible – assessing the credibility of this version and securing the evidence must happen without delay.
It pays to be properly prepared: both in knowing what you can claim and in having a clear strategy.
We handle cases for drivers in Poznań and across the Wielkopolska region, with in-person and online consultations available for clients elsewhere in Poland.
Adwokat Marta Krzyżanowicz and Adwokat Michalina Koligot Law Firm “Adwokat dla Kierowców w Poznaniu”
ul. Adama Mickiewicza 18/3, 60-834 Poznań
tel. +48 795 001 536 · +48 531 335 713
kontakt@adwokatdlakierowcy.pl · www.adwokatdlakierowcy.pl
This text is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case requires individual analysis.
