Refused to Submit Alcotest Motorist Found Guilty of Driving while Intoxicated

He said in court that the police had made unfounded allegations against him. Ashvin Appadoo was pursued "Refusing to submit himself to a breath test upon a request made by a police officer" in violation of section 123 G (1) (a) (2) (a) of the Road Traffic Act "Refusing to give a specimen of blood or urine for a laboratory test "in violation of the 123 H (1) (b) (4) (5) and section 163 (1) subsection (a) (b) of the Road Traffic Act and of "driving a motor vehicle with alcohol concentration above prescribed limit" in violation of sections 123 F (1) (a) (3) 123 H (5) (6) (a) and 52 of the Road Traffic Act.

The happened on 17 October 2009. Ashvin Appadoo went to the police station to Rose Hill to report a theft. According to the officer on duty that day, the accused was holding her car keys. He smelled of alcohol and spoke aloud. After completing the formalities, the accused was returning to his car to leave the police station. It was at this time that another officer asked him to submit to a blood alcohol test. Another officer had explained to the accused the consequences that could result in a denial. However, Ashvin Appadoo should also refuse to give a sample of blood or urine, indicating that it was not him who was driving the vehicle.

In a statement to the police, the accused explained that this is another who took him to the police station in Rose Hill. He denied having driven while intoxicated.

In court, Ashvin Appadoo argued that the police have made false allegations against him. The accused told that earlier that day he had been robbed in a private club in Ebony and saw that he had consumed alcohol, another person led to the position of Font. The police have asked him to return the next day, but he had insisted they record his testimony this evening. He explained that he had refused to submit to a breathalyzer test because it was not him who was driving that day.

In its judgment, the magistrate Meenakshi Gayan-Jaulminsingh argued that the accused had a duty by law to submit to a breath test unless there is a valid reason. In this case, the court found that the accused had not told the truth because he had suggested that it was not he who then led the officer had seen him do. " I have noted that PC Rampersad addressed the Court in a straightforward and confident manner and I have no reason to doubt his word. PC Rampursad struck me as witness of truth and I believe his version that he saw the Accused drive his car when he was under the influence of alcohol in the compounds of Rose Hill police station. "Given the inconsistencies in the version of the accused that he had initially said he had not been drinking that night and had later said in court that he had had a few drinks in club, the court found that the testimony of the accused was not reliable and retained his guilt in respect of the three charges against him. The sentence will be pronounced later.