{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.011560693641618497, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.646739130434782, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Is the two-hour evidentiary presumption in the context of drinking and driving cases a sufficiently compelling factor to override a suspect's right to counsel under South African law?

South African legislation makes it an offence for a person to drive a vehicle on a public road while the concentration of alcohol in any specimen of blood or breath is in excess of the prescribed minimum. If it is proved that a sample taken within two hours of the alleged contravention is in excess of the prescribed minimum, it shall be presumed that the concentration of alcohol was above the prescribed minimum at the time of the alleged offence. Under South African law the suspect is not afforded the opportunity to confer with or to be assisted by counsel when the sample is taken in this crucial timeline. In this article I investigate whether the suspect is entitled to counsel during this two-hour period and if so, whether the suspect's right to counsel is being violated. I also investigate whether evidence of the sample should be excluded.