Criminal Appeal by Stated Case:- Both appellants were charged with being in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in their breath exceeded the prescribed limit, contrary to the Road Traffic Act 1988, section 5(1)(b). Both appellants sought to invoke the statutory defence found in section 5(2) of that Act, by proving that there was no likelihood of him driving when he was still above the prescribed limit. In both of these appeals the court considered whether the sheriff had applied the correct test in considering whether the appellant has satisfied the court that the defence available under section 5(2) had been made out. Here the court considered the purpose of the legislation which was to provide the accused with the opportunity to exonerate himself from the charge if he could show that there was no likelihood that he would drive whilst he was so unfit. As such section 5(2) of the Act imposed a legal, rather than a persuasive burden on the appellant as in order to escape conviction he had to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that there was no likelihood that he would drive before the amount of alcohol in his system fell below the legal limit. On behalf of the appellants it was submitted that the phrase "no likelihood" of driving was unclear, and that there was little guidance available to work out how such a defence might be approached. Here the court considered whether the sheriffs each correctly understood the appropriate test and whether they applied that test in light of the particular circumstances of the cases before them.