AMMANFORD magistrates have sent out a clear message to drink-drivers who put the lives of innocent people at risk - refuse to give a sample and you'll get a shorter ban.
The outrageous news arrived last week when a Tycroes woman was banned for 16 months for being just under twice the legal limit.
Less than an hour later, a 22-year-old man was banned for just 12 months for failing to blow into a breathalyser.
These two differing sentences sensationally reveal that refusing to provide a sample will see drink-drivers getting a lesser ban than those who fail the tests - even if they may have drunk five times as much.
Karen Stratford, of 106 High Street, was breathalysed and was found to have 69 microgrammes of alcohol in 100millilitres of breath. The legal limit is 35mg/100ml.
Prosecutor Iwan Jenkins said: "Officers attended the scene of a road traffic accident, but the car was empty. When they discovered the details of the owner they went to her home."
The 35-year-old admitted being the owner of the car. She was breathalysed and charged.
But the result of a case dealt with by magistrates during the same session proves that Stretford would have been on the road four months sooner had she refused to give a sample.
Gareth John Nicholas, of Wernoleu Road, was spotted by officers in Pontarddulais Road, Tycroes, on February 11.
Mr Jenkins told the court: "Officers could smell intoxicants on him and he was slurring.
"He said he left work at 2.30pm and went to Wind Street in Swansea, where he had three pints before driving home at 1am."
Mr Jenkins said that Nicholas was arrested after failing to blow into the breathalyser. When asked to give a sample at the station, he said he already had and refused to do so again.
Magistrates decided to ban Nicholas for 12 months - the minimum time for the offence. The maximum penalty for refusing to provide a sample is six months imprisonment or a £5,000 fine.
Stratford, who was fined £150 in June last year for failing to stop after an accident, was fined £150 while Nicholas was fined £130. Both were ordered to pay £55 costs.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article