Man took out false teeth in court to defend claims he had been unfit to drive
A 53-year-old man accused of driving drunk took his false teeth out in court to show why he may have seemed intoxicated.
William Ratter, of Brakefield, Unst, had been seen by witnesses allegedly slurring his words and acting unusually after a car accident in Baltasound on 1st March last year.
But although Ratter acknowledged drinking up to two bottles of spirts a day to cope with sciatica pain – he maintained he had been fit to drive on that occasion.
He said witnesses may have thought he had been drunk as he did not have his false teeth in. He took the dentures out to show his difficulties speaking during his trial at Lerwick Sheriff Court yesterday (Thursday).
Sheriff Ian Cruickshank described it as an “interesting case” – and after some deliberation delivered a “not proven” verdict.
The sheriff said that if it had been a civil case, where the standard of proof is “on a balance of probabilities”, he would have had “no hesitation” to rule it was “more probable than not” that Ratter was driving while unfit through drink or drugs.
But for a criminal case, which has a higher standard of proof, Sheriff Cruickshank said he did have “reasonable doubt” and was therefore unable to find him guilty.
Earlier, the court heard that Ratter had given a reading of 115 micrograms of alcohol in 100ml of breath – more than five times the limit.
But the reading was taken “many hours” after the incident, during which time Ratter had by his own admission drunk three quarters of a bottle of whisky and two cans of beer.
As such, Sheriff Cruickshank was able to accept there was a “reasonable explanation”.
Instead, the Crown sought to use witnesses’ testimony to prove its case.
Two 13-year-olds told the court they had seen Ratter crash his car at around 4pm that day.
Appearing separately via video-link, they each described seeing Ratter driving at speed along the A968 into Baltasound before slowing to wave at them.
They said he then mounted the dyke on the side of the road, before righting himself and speeding off down Gutter Street.
As a result of the collision, the court heard stones had allegedly been knocked off the dyke and a fence post had been left in the road.
The children said they told one of their mothers what they had seen.
The woman, a 42-year-old health worker, also gave evidence, saying she had encountered Ratter in the Final Checkout shop earlier that afternoon.
She said Ratter had tried to frighten her by approaching from behind and “making a loud noise”.
The witness said Ratter then bought bottle of whisky and left, adding that he was “very loud”.
After leaving the shop, the woman said the children had told her about a “strange man in a car” who had crashed and driven off down Gutter Street.
Following in the same direction, she arriving at the Skibhoul shop where she said she saw the same red car and Ratter leaving the premises.
“He was limping as if he was in pain,” she said.
“I asked ‘are you OK to drive’ and he said he was fine.”
After watching Ratter drive off, allegedly at speed, the woman said she went into the shop to ask staff if they thought Ratter had appeared drunk.
She said they agreed. The witness later reported the incident to police online.
One of the shopkeepers working in Skibhoul at the time also gave evidence.
She said Ratter had been walking with an “exaggerated” limp and seemed as though he was “on something”.
The witness said Ratter seemed argumentative, and was complaining that they didn’t have “the right kind of meat”.
Ratter, taking the stand, insisted the witnesses had been mistaken.
He explained his limp was due to sciatica, which he treats with painkillers and drink.
However, he insisted he would never drive if he felt drowsy due to medication, nor would he get behind the wheel drunk.
Ratter said he had bought two breathalysers on E-bay, which he used to check he was not over the limit.
He claimed the two children had “misconstrued” what they had seen. Although he admitted coming slightly off the road onto the grass, he insisted he had not gone on top of the wall – claiming his car would have been more damaged had he done so.
When asked whether he had sped off, Ratter also denied it saying his noisy exhaust may have made it seem that way.
Ratter also acknowledged approaching the mother in Final Checkout but denied it was evidence he had been drunk.
“It was just banter,” he said.
“If it’s a crime to go up to a stranger in a shop and go ‘boo’ then it’s a sad day for society.”
He also admitted being loud, but said that was just his personality. He said he “lit up the room” when he entered.
Defence agent Tommy Allan said it was “important not to lose sight of the wood for the trees”.
“The issue is can the Crown prove beyond reasonable doubt that at the time of Mr Ratter drove the car he was unfit to drive,” he said.
Mr Allan suggested his client had given reasonable explanations for all of the claims made by the Crown’s case.
Sheriff Cruickshank said that while he did not believe all of Ratter’s claim – he did believe “certain aspects of it”.
“Mr Ratter is innocent until proven guilty,” he said.
“I’m not here to speculate or reach inferences that the evidence does not allow me to reach.”
