Retrospective drink driving - not right surely?

[guindilias]

Hackney said:

Agreed. If he wasn't driving it would mean he'd let a ten year old drive.
Also, neighbour's statement that he was staggering (due to being drunk) would be disproven by cctv of him walking normally, but it was as much about the timeline as anything else.

So basically, everything comes down to the timeline, the back-calculation, and his proof that he wasn't over the limit when driving. The timeline will be seen from the Spar CCTV, and the time of him being tested at the police station. Am I right, or got this wrong?

Then (I would assume he'll have to pay for it himself - I did, but the law may differ slightly on the mainland) the back-calculation, which will be able to say whether or not he was over the limit at the time of driving given his claims as to when and how much he drank.

If he can prove that he drank little enough before/while driving to be under the limit until after driving, he'll walk away with a hefty legal bill.

If he can't prove this and the judge does not believe him (regarding when he drank and how much) then he'll get a lengthy ban, a fine, possibly a suspended sentence, community service etc. - and a hefty legal bill as well.

Then if convicted, he can decide whether or not to appeal - I would imagine his barrister will be able to advise him regarding this.
Even bigger legal bill, and he can appeal either the entire conviction, or the sentence alone (basically admitting guilt, but hoping for a reduction in ban, fine, whatever he got at the initial conviction).

There's no happy ending really, he's going to have to spend a mint on legal representation - and even if he can prove to the judge's satisfaction that he was under the limit when driving, he'll still be out a lot of time and money.

Or, if he knows himself that he was probably over the limit while driving, he could plead guilty, and take a smaller ban and fine due to pleading guilty.

Tough times, and I know well - I've been there!