Khan, R (on the application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions

Whether special reasons exist to avoid mandatory disqualification for drink-driving is determined objectively and depends on the whole circumstances. Relevant considerations include the nature and urgency of the emergency, available alternatives to driving, the manner of driving, whether the driver acted responsibly and the level of alcohol. A very high alcohol reading is a powerful factor against relief. On a case stated appeal, the High Court should not interfere merely because it might have reached a different conclusion. Intervention requires a conclusion that the magistrates’ exercise of discretion was not reasonably open to them on the facts and with proper directions.

The claimant pleaded guilty to driving with excess alcohol after driving approximately one mile to investigate whether his sons had been involved in a serious road accident. His blood alcohol level was nearly two and a half times the prescribed limit. The magistrates declined to find special reasons and imposed the statutory disqualification.

On appeal by way of case stated, the claimant argued that the magistrates had failed to give proper weight to the emergency and his subjective state of mind. The questions were whether the magistrates could reasonably have reached their decision and whether they had erred in law by applying an objective test.

1. Appeal dismissed. The first question was answered in the affirmative and the second in the negative.
2. The assessment of special reasons is objective, although the court must consider the circumstances as found, including the nature and degree of the crisis or emergency. The relevant considerations include whether alternative transport or methods of dealing with the crisis existed, the manner in which the defendant drove and whether he acted responsibly. A very high alcohol concentration is a powerful reason against exercising the discretion in the defendant’s favour. The approach in Taylor v Rajan [1974] RTR 304 was applied.
3. The magistrates were entitled to conclude that the claimant could have walked to the scene or made greater efforts to wake his wife, who was capable of driving and had consumed no alcohol. Their conclusion that a sober, reasonable and responsible friend would have advised him not to drive was open to them.
4. On a case stated appeal, interference was justified only if the magistrates had exercised their discretion in a way that was not open to them, properly directing themselves. The claimant had not established that threshold.
5. DPP v Knight 1994 RTR 374 was materially different on its facts, including the lower alcohol level and the absence of objectionable driving, and provided no assistance.

Costs were ordered in the sum of £800, payable within 56 days.

• High Court (Administrative Court): On appeal by way of case stated, answered the first question in the affirmative, the second in the negative, and dismissed the appeal.
• Magistrates’ court: Declined to find special reasons and disqualified the claimant from driving for three years after his guilty plea to driving with excess alcohol.