A police officer from Shepherdswell is likely to lose his job after driving to work over the alcohol limit.
PC Anthony Thomas arrived at Canterbury’s Old Dover Road station at 8am smelling of alcohol and was ordered by a sergeant to take a breath test.
The 45-year-old, of Eythorne Road, had 41 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of the breath. The legal limit is 35.
Prosecutor Neil Sweeney told city magistrates that Thomas had driven from his home in a B-reg Mitsubishi Shogun on August 30.
“He arrived for work at Canterbury police station at 8am when a sergeant detected the presence of alcohol on his breath,” Mr Sweeney said.
“He failed a breath test and was then interviewed. The day before, he had been working on his house and had drunk two or three cans in the afternoon.
“He is grateful that nothing happened as a result of his actions and complied with the breath test procedure" - barrister Abigail Langer
“Later that evening he had been drinking red wine from a box and says he went to bed about 10pm before waking at 6.40am.”
Thomas, who has no previous convictions, admitted drink driving.
His barrister Abigail Langer told the court that Thomas was likely to lose his job as a result of the conviction.
“This was quite simply an unfortunate mistake,” Ms Langer said. “He had been working on his house and then had gone to bed.
“When he woke to go to work the next day, he certainly had no belief that he was intoxicated and felt fine. Had he had any idea that he was over the limit, he would have not driven.
“He is grateful that nothing happened as a result of his actions and complied with the breath test procedure.
“Aside from losing his job and his income, this has been a very difficult time which is going to be made harder for him.
“He has been going through a very difficult divorce and is now estranged from his ex-wife and son.”
Ms Langer added that Thomas was unlikely to ever re-offend.
Thomas was banned from driving for a year and fined £500 with £85 costs and a £50 victim surcharge.
Police spokesman Martin Very said: “This case is now subject to internal disciplinary proceedings as is standard procedure. It would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage.”