Drink Driving Escaping Liability

kizkiz

As a police officer, to clear this up...
I've arrested and had successful prosecutions against quite a few drink drivers that no police saw anywhere near their car.
All we need is a statement from a witness to put that person driving.
Obviously it rather relies on us finding the driver before the drink wears off
Never had to explore countback before, but guarentee i would arrest someone even if they'd got home and claimed to have downed a bottle of whisky

George_Michael

Road_Hog wrote: »

It's still rubbish and not true.

Police can not obtain a conviction if they don't catch the person at the time. The person can say that they were under the limit whilst driving, but then had a few cans of beer/wine/whisky as soon as they got in the house.

If the police have zero chance of a conviction then this raises a couple of questions.

Why would the CPS allow a case to be brought to court and why wouldn't the judge dismiss it if they thought that there was no possibility of a conviction (unless the accused pleaded guilty), and even more importantly, why would anyone plead guilty knowing that a non guilty plea would ensure that they couldn't lose the case?

If it was in fact true that there was no possibility of a conviction without a guilty plea being entered, then any 1st year defence lawyer or solicitor would be aware of this and would advise their client accordingly.

Road_Hog

George_Michael wrote: »

If the police have zero chance of a conviction then this raises a couple of questions.

Why would the CPS allow a case to be brought to court and why wouldn't the judge dismiss it if they thought that there was no possibility of a conviction (unless the accused pleaded guilty), and even more importantly, why would anyone plead guilty knowing that a non guilty plea would ensure that they couldn't lose the case?

If it was in fact true that there was no possibility of a conviction without a guilty plea being entered, then any 1st year defence lawyer or solicitor would be aware of this and would advise their client accordingly.

I'll answer this, I'm going to quote an example, but I don't want this thread to drift off topic. So, please, nobody start on their political views, let's stick to drink driving and the law.

I'm quite heavily involved with the EDL. The police often prosecute members on race hate laws, even though Islam is not a race, but a religion.

Now, as well as the race hate laws, there is also the Religious Hatred Act 2006. Many members have been convicted of race hatred despite Islam not being a race, for example, burning the Qur'an. The reason that they've been convicted is that they've pleaded guilty.

No one has ever been convicted under the Religious Hatred Act, despite it going to trial after the accused pleaded not guilty.

My point is, you can be convicted of anything if you plead guilty, but district judges or (if you elect to go to Crown) a jury will not convict you on flimsy evidence.

Coming back to the quoted poster, because the CPS/police are only interested in KPI/conviction rates, not in actual justice. It's all about performance targets these days.

antrobus

... if a driver provides a specimen some hours after the time of the alleged offence which is below the legal limit the forensic science service provider, or a private laboratory, may advise that by means of back calculations based upon rates at which the human body eliminates alcohol it is possible to establish that the driver was in excess of the legal limit when the offence occurred. You are entitled to rely upon such back calculations for the purposes of proving an offence under section 5 (see Gumbley v Cunningham (1989) 1 All ER 5) but only if that evidence is easily understood and clearly persuasive of the presence of excess alcohol at the time of the alleged offence.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_offences_drink_driving/

Trebor16

Road_Hog wrote: »

You need to read your articles first.

"Collier admitted drink driving, failing to stop after an accident and failing to report an accident at an earlier hearing."

He pleaded guilty, I wonder what would have happened if he'd pleaded not guilty.

Second example.

"G pleaded guilty to the charge on that basis"

Again, it's easy to convict someone when they plead guilty.

Have you any examples where someone has pleaded not guilty?

They had to have the power to deal with him in the first instance before they could charge him and put him before a court. Obviously that part of the process has managed to escape you.

Trebor16

Road_Hog wrote: »

I'll answer this, I'm going to quote an example, but I don't want this thread to drift off topic. So, please, nobody start on their political views, let's stick to drink driving and the law.

I'm quite heavily involved with the EDL. The police often prosecute members on race hate laws, even though Islam is not a race, but a religion.

Now, as well as the race hate laws, there is also the Religious Hatred Act 2006. Many members have been convicted of race hatred despite Islam not being a race, for example, burning the Qur'an. The reason that they've been convicted is that they've pleaded guilty.

No one has ever been convicted under the Religious Hatred Act, despite it going to trial after the accused pleaded not guilty.

My point is, you can be convicted of anything if you plead guilty, but district judges or (if you elect to go to Crown) a jury will not convict you on flimsy evidence.

Coming back to the quoted poster, because the CPS/police are only interested in KPI/conviction rates, not in actual justice. It's all about performance targets these days.

A plea of guilty is a conviction! And can you provide the source of your claim that no-one has been found guilty in a court after pleading not guilty to an offence under the Religious Hatred Act?

pendulum

Wig wrote: »

Aren't you an emergency services driver? (sorry if you're not, it's just I seem to remember that from your post history)

LOL. Bigjl sits around in his pants all day trolling internet forums. If he had a job it wouldn't be one that involves helping anyone else such as an emergency services worker; more likely he'd be a traffic warden.

thenudeone

Wig wrote: »

Only if there had been an injury.

No.

If the driver does not give the relevant details at the scene, then the accident must be reported to police even if no injuries are caused.

Road Traffic Act 1988

170 Duty of driver to stop, report accident and give information or documents.

(1)This section applies in a case where, owing to the presence of a [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] on a road [F2or other public place], an accident occurs by which—

(a)personal injury is caused to a person other than the driver of that [F1mechanically propelled vehicle], or
(b)damage is caused—
(i)to a vehicle other than that [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] or a trailer drawn by that [F1mechanically propelled vehicle], or
(ii)to an animal other than an animal in or on that [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] or a trailer drawn by that [F1mechanically propelled vehicle], or
(iii)to any other property constructed on, fixed to, growing in or otherwise forming part of the land on which the road [F3or place] in question is situated or land adjacent to such land.

(2)The driver of the [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] must stop and, if required to do so by any person having reasonable grounds for so requiring, give his name and address and also the name and address of the owner and the identification marks of the vehicle.
(3)If for any reason the driver of the [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] does not give his name and address under subsection (2) above, he must report the accident.

please please please look at the links to the legislation before coming up with comments which seem to be the equivalent of "the guy at the pub", and then presenting them as fact.

thenudeone

Road_Hog wrote: »

It's still rubbish and not true.

Police can not obtain a conviction if they don't catch the person at the time.

I have already quoted the law which allows police to enter a property to require a breath test. Obviously the driver isn't at the scene of the accident at that point.

If quoting an Act of Parliment isn't enough for you to accept that you are wrong, you are obviously trolling. There is nothing more to add.

Don't feed the troll

jimboban

thenudeone wrote: »

No.

If the driver does not give the relevant details at the scene, then the accident must be reported to police even if no injuries are caused.

Road Traffic Act 1988

170 Duty of driver to stop, report accident and give information or documents.

(1)This section applies in a case where, owing to the presence of a [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] on a road [F2or other public place], an accident occurs by which—

(a)personal injury is caused to a person other than the driver of that [F1mechanically propelled vehicle], or
(b)damage is caused—
(i)to a vehicle other than that [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] or a trailer drawn by that [F1mechanically propelled vehicle], or
(ii)to an animal other than an animal in or on that [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] or a trailer drawn by that [F1mechanically propelled vehicle], or
(iii)to any other property constructed on, fixed to, growing in or otherwise forming part of the land on which the road [F3or place] in question is situated or land adjacent to such land.

(2)The driver of the [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] must stop and, if required to do so by any person having reasonable grounds for so requiring, give his name and address and also the name and address of the owner and the identification marks of the vehicle.
(3)If for any reason the driver of the [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] does not give his name and address under subsection (2) above, he must report the accident.

please please please look at the links to the legislation before coming up with comments which seem to be the equivalent of "the guy at the pub", and then presenting them as fact.

F1 mechanically propelled vehicle eh?

Not too many of those on the roads...;)