Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
SS-1682/2009-OLR ECLI:DK:OLR:2023:SS0000000402 AI generated

Court upholds mandatory driver ban for drunk driving where emergency assistance to sick spouse is not a mitigating factor.

Case Number SS-1682/2009-OLR
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Denmark (DK)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The High Court of Denmark upheld the lower court's decision to revoke the defendant's driving license without conditions. The defendant argued she drove 60 km to assist her seriously ill husband under extreme emotional stress, requesting only a conditional license. The court rejected this as a special mitigating circumstance under traffic law, ruling that the emergency nature of the trip did not justify leniency.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Færdselslovens § 126, stk. 2; The court established that driving to provide emergency assistance to a seriously ill spouse does not constitute a special mitigating circumstance sufficient to override the mandatory revocation of driving rights for drunk driving.

Keywords

AI generated
drunk driving penalty mandatory license revocation emergency assistance exception mitigating circumstances spousal duty driving emotional stress defense conditional license denial

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Færdselslovens § 126, stk. 2
færdselslovens § 126, stk. 2.
AI generated
SS-141/2008-VLR
Court increases probation period to five years for a second offense of driving under the influence of spirits.
SS-68/2022-HJR
Supreme Court upholds mandatory license revocation for driving while sleep-deprived under aggravating circumstances.
SS-1965/2013-VLR
Court upholds 5-year license ban for drunk driving with drugs, rejecting plea for reduction.
SS-3479/2012-OLR
Court rejects diplomatic immunity defense for drunk driving, imposing suspended prison sentence and license revocation.
SS-22/2025-HJR
Permanent license revocation for fifth DUI offense remains valid; transitional recovery clause inapplicable.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Byrettens dom for spirituskørsel stadfæstes

[DOKUMENT] Dom (2 sider) UDSKRIFT AF ØSTRE LANDSRETS DOMBOG ____________ DOM

Afsagt den 31. juli 2009 af Østre Landsrets 23. afdeling (landsdommerne Birte Lynæs, B. Vollmond og Grethe Jørgensen (kst.) uden domsmænd).

23. afd. a.s. nr. S-1682-09: Anklagemyndigheden mod Tiltalte (CPR nr. (Født 1951)) (advokat Finn Bachmann, besk.)

Hillerød Rets dom af 2. juni 2009 (8-1493/2009) er anket af tiltalte med påstand om for-mildelse, således at der alene sker betinget frakendelse af tiltaltes førerret.

Anklagemyndigheden har påstået stadfæstelse.

Tiltalte har i landsretten supplerende forklaret, at hun tog hjem, fordi hun fornemmede, at den var noget alvorligt galt med hendes mand. Hun var på daværende tidspunkt under stærkt følelsesmæssigt stress. Der var ca. 60 km fra sommerhuset til hjemmet.

Landsrettens begrundelse og resultat

Det lægges til grund, at tiltalte foretog kørslen med henblik på straks at yde bistand til hen-des alvorligt syge ægtefælle, og at ubetinget frakendelse af tiltaltes førerret vil medføre alvorlige problemer for hendes erhvervsudøvelse. Disse forhold kan ikke efter praksis an-ses som særlig formildende omstændigheder, jf. færdselslovens § 126, stk. 2. Dommens bestemmelse om førerretsfrakendelse tiltrædes derfor. /

Landsretten stadfæster derfor dommen.

Thi kendes for ret:

Byrettens dom i sagen mod Tiltalte stadfæstes, for så vidt den er påanket.

Tiltalte skal betale sagens omkostninger for landsretten.

/ /