Managing the penalties for driving under the influence (DUI) is often more complex than one might imagine, especially when alternative measures such as community service work (LPU) come into play. In a case I handled directly, I assisted P., an employee whose driving licence had been suspended for six months following a test showing a blood alcohol level between 0.8 and 1.5 g/l, pursuant to art. 186 of the Italian Road Code.
The defence strategy: replacing the sentence
In the criminal proceedings, we adopted a defence strategy aimed at reducing the impact of the conviction: an application was therefore filed for replacement of the sentence with community service work, an option expressly provided for by art. 186, paragraph 9-bis. The judge granted the application, ordering unpaid work for the benefit of the community. At the end of the programme, which was carried out correctly, the court declared the extinction of the offence, with a corresponding reduction in the licence suspension.
The issue of the suspension period already served
The critical point of the case, however, concerned the suspension period already served. P. had in fact already endured a licence suspension longer than the one re-determined by the judge upon the successful completion of the community service, and the question therefore arose whether it was possible to obtain compensation for the "excess" period.
From a legal standpoint, the answer is unfavourable. The initial suspension ordered by the Prefect has a precautionary nature and is grounded in the legislation in force; subsequently, the choice to access community service work represents an option available to the defendant, one that carries undeniable advantages, including extinction of the offence and a reduction of the ancillary sanctions. However, this choice does not allow the defendant to claim compensation for the suspension period already served.
In other words, no recoverable damage arises, as the measure applied falls within the scope of the legal consequences provided for the established violation, and the defence strategy adopted is aimed at obtaining overall benefits, not at retroactively re-determining effects that have already occurred.
Conclusions: the importance of a prompt and strategic defence
This case highlights a key point: in DUI cases it is essential to set up, from the very start, a targeted technical defence, weighing every available option, including the possibility — in certain cases — of requesting the suspension of the ancillary sanction during the performance of community service. Prompt and strategic case management can make the difference between a straightforward conviction and a significantly more favourable outcome, also in terms of the impact on the client's working and personal life.