Drink driving laws could soon be tightened after a man’s conviction was overturned.Ashley Redmond was riding his motorcycle after consuming alcohol when he knocked over Sylvan Dill while he was on a pedestrian crossing last year.The father-of-seven suffered a double fracture to his right leg and fractured his face. He has since walked with a heavy limp.Mr Redmond, 41, was found guilty by unanimous verdict in February, of causing grievous bodily harm while riding his motorcycle over the legal alcohol limit. In the Court of Appeal yesterday, Mr Redmond’s lawyer Richard Horseman successfully argued that the jury had no way of being sure that his client was over the legal alcohol limit at the time of the collision.Supreme Court President Edward Zacca, along with Sir Austin Ward and Sir Robin Auld, agreed to squash Mr Redmond’s conviction and 15-month prison sentence. And Mr Zacca said that as a result of the case, legislation may need to be amended.He said: “There was no evidence as to what the blood sample was at the time of the accident. So the Crown failed to prove he was over the limit at the time of the accident.“This is going to cause some difficulty here in respect to other cases and will be a very difficult case for the Crown to prove from time-to-time based on the expert [evidence] they have.”Experts who tested Mr Redmond’s blood alcohol level more than three hours after the crash, had said during his trial that he had at least 122 milligrams of alcohol in his system. The legal limit is 80 mg of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.Yesterday, Mr Horseman said blood-alcohol levels were based on a “scientific calculation”. He questioned how the jury could guess whether his client was over the legal limit at the time of the crash without expert evidence to prove this.He told the court to imagine that a large man had eaten a big meal and had a few glasses of wine before riding home.If that man got into an accident it would be impossible to know what his blood alcohol level was at the time of riding compared to three hours later. A blood sample test taken then would give the alcohol time to be absorbed into the blood stream, Mr Horseman said.Expert evidence should have addressed this issue, the lawyer said.Prosecutor Nicole Smith said one expert did explain how alcohol was absorbed into the blood stream within 30 to 60 minutes.She said yesterday the jury was “perfectly entitled to assume the body eliminated alcohol after consumption”.“The Crown says the accident occurred at 10.10pm. There was no dispute that the applicant was the rider.“The prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had no opportunity to consume alcohol between the time of the accident and the time the sample was taken.“The defence didn’t challenge that and they didn’t lead any evidence to the contrary. Having established these facts [the expert] in his evidence informed the jury that alcohol eliminates from the body.”Mr Zacca urged Ms Smith to flag the issue up with the Department of Public Prosecution so they could look into amending the law.“That would make it a lot easier,” he stated.Mr Horseman later told The Royal Gazette his client was “extremely pleased” with the decision.“In my view Mr Redmond should have never been convicted on evidence presented at court.“Clearly there are difficulties with the legislation that will make it difficult for convictions to be upheld in the future and certainly for Mr Redmond it is unfortunate he had to spend three-and-a-half months in prison, but justice has now been served.”