Man who drank gin as pain reliever before driving to hospital lost drink-driving appeal

A man from the Port Willunga suburb of Adelaide, Australia, who consumed gin as a painkiller after a chainsaw accident and then drove to a hospital for treatment has failed to have his drink-driving conviction overturned. Timothy Michael Withrow recorded a blood-alcohol reading of .175 when he was pulled over by police for failing to stop at an intersection in February last year. In his judgment dismissing the appeal, Justice Nicholson said Withrow had cut a “gaping wound” in his hand while using a chainsaw to clear some trees so workmen could fix his air conditioning unit.

He said Withrow had called Noarlunga Hospital and Flinders Medical Centre - but was told there could be a 10-hour wait for treatment so he decided to self-medicate by drinking the gin. Justice Nicholson said Withrow had then become concerned that, if left untreated, there was a serious risk his wound would become infected and he could not afford an ambulance to collect him. “He found a large sewing needle and some fishing line and commenced suturing the wound himself,” he said.
“Not having any antiseptic in the house, the appellant used gin to wash the wound. The process of stitching the wound was, not surprisingly, quite painful. The appellant therefore also drank the gin which proved to be an effective form of pain relief.” He said Withrow had called his doctor who had advised him to see a surgeon. Justice Nicholson, however, agreed with the sentencing magistrate that Withrow had other safer options than to drive himself to the Flinders Medical Center. “The appellant’s evidence was that he could not afford the cost of calling an ambulance which he estimated at approximately $800.”
However, the Magistrate observed that, as conceded by the appellant under cross-examination, he also had the option of calling a taxi. “I add that there also were the options of asking one of the workmen (before they left) to drive the appellant to the hospital or a medical center or investigating whether a neighbor was available.” He dismissed the appeal and said Withrow’s decision to drive could have been dangerous. “Furthermore, the appellant’s very high blood alcohol content, combined with the fact that his journey, had it been completed, would have required him to traverse a main arterial road on a Friday afternoon, meant that he posed a clear danger not only to himself but to other road users.”