DR10 Dispute

[disputeee]

Two years ago i was convicted of a driving offence DR10. I pleaded guilty in court and was given a 16 month licence disqualification (with option of attending rehabilitation course). However, recently i have decided its time to get my licence back and reading over the documentation which was supplied at that time - it seems that the court was under the impression my breath contained 100 microgrammes of alcohol (the test performed at the station) BUT i am positive that the lowest value (of the two tests performed at the station on night of offence) was 52 microgrammes.

The documents that state the incorrect figure are the 'DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS DRINK-DRIVE REHABILITATION SCHEME REFERRAL ORDER SECTION 34A(2) OF THE ROAD TRAFFIC OFFENDERS ACT 1988' under the section 'Details of Offender'. (states Alcohol Level: BREATH 100 MICROGRAMMES)
Also the DVLA letter on confirmation, they 'received details from the court'. The letter doesnt actually state the incorrect figure but rather suggests its over 87.5 microgrammes as indeed the letter states, 'The disqualification outlined below are ones the law recognises as being an indication that such drivers may misuse alcohol in a way that could make them unfit to hold a driving licence' - '...disqualification for driving...when the level of alcohol in your body equalled or exceeded...(i) 87.5 microgrammes per 100 mililitres of breath' - 'Your recent disqualification means that you fall into one of the above categories.'

I am now worried that under the immense pressure and stress i faced at that time i missed a vital flaw in the case against me... as indeed i am not trying to flee from the charge of driving under the influence but the truth of the matter is, that the court sentenced me (it seems) under almost double the severity...

Any advice on my next approach - Do i need to get a solicitor?

( Tomorow im going to request the

[123everton]

Yes, you need to get a solicitor.

[divlong]

Did you have a blood test? If so, it could be that they got confused between breath and blood readings. When I got convicted a few years ago the prosecution had to remind the magistrate that my reading of 89 was a blood reading. You would still have got a 12 month ban though.