Disproportionate?! I Think Not!

fivetide

michaelvintner wrote: »

He was caught Drink Driving, he was involved in a collision. He should be dealt with harshly but fairly. Taking away his property to the value of £23000 is not fair it is ridiculous.

what if he'd killed the 81 year old chap he hit? would it be fair or ridiculous then?

What if this isn't his first offence?

The loss of the car used to be purely for repeat offenders but there was quite a bit in the news up here saying the vehicle seizure scheme would be extended to anyone more than three times over the limit so he was warned.

Also as this article says, to get to that level he's potentially got six pints inside him. That's not "a couple at lunch" that's a session and then driving a very high powered car. I don't believe his story about goign home for more booze either.

http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/transport/drink_drive_once_and_you_could_lose_car_1_1991608

5t.

Gavin83

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

Just had a quick Google and could only find (from Surrey police)

Why have the police seized my car?

[FONT=Verdana,Verdana][FONT=Verdana,Verdana]Section 165A Road Traffic Act 1988 gives police the power to seize vehicles which are being driven by uninsured drivers or drivers who do not have a valid driving licence or where a vehicle has failed to stop when required by police and there is a suspicion that the vehicle is uninsured. Driving without insurance and/or driving licence is viewed by Surrey Police as anti-social behaviour.
[/FONT][/FONT]

It's only temporary as far as I'm aware though, if your caught with an uninsured vehicle you can either get it insured and collect it or get someone else to do it.

mikey72

fivetide wrote: »

................ I don't believe his story about goign home for more booze either.

http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/transport/drink_drive_once_and_you_could_lose_car_1_1991608

5t.

Can't prove he didn't get in the house and have a few more whiskies though.
In fact I would expect it, rather than expect a scottish oil rig worker to go in for a coffee.
If the police had breathalysed him at the roadside, fair enough, but he was arrested hours later.

fivetide

mikey72 wrote: »

Can't prove he didn't get in the house and have a few more whiskies though.
In fact I would expect it, rather than expect him to go in for a coffee.
If the police had breathalysed him at the roadside, fair enough, but he was arrested hours later.

Did you even read it?

He admitted he was oiled up.

5t.

mikey72

fivetide wrote: »

Did you even read it?

He admitted he was oiled up.

5t.

"Neil Wilson said his client, who drives an Audi RS4 Quattro, accepted he was over the limit when he caused the collision, but that drink he subsequently took at home had inflated the reading."

Afterwards he drove home, parked up, and carried on drinking.
Hence he was over three times the limit after driving, but below three times earlier, so there is no right to sieze the car for being three times over when driving.

fivetide

mikey72 wrote: »

"Neil Wilson said his client, who drives an Audi RS4 Quattro, accepted he was over the limit when he caused the collision, but that drink he subsequently took at home had inflated the reading."

Afterwards he drove home, parked up, and carried on drinking.
Hence he was over three times the limit after driving, but below three times earlier, so there is no right to sieze the car for being three times over when driving.

Really?

I suspect you are just playing daft.

So you KNOW that he went home and had more drink right? Because hey, he's unlikely to go home for a coffee.

Either that or.... [shock] :eek: he's just saying that to try and get off with it.

You also seem to know that he went home and had enough to put him up to three times over. I mean you've stated he was below the three times limit when he had the accident. How do you know that?

Can you gaze into your crystal ball and tell us how many he'd had when he hit the car? Had he really just had two pints was only a bit over then went home and necked four more pints? (could be double whiskys - I'm sure you can tell me).

Does your crystal ball also tell you whether he nipped in the door and immediately ploughed into the drink or did he wait a bit? Remember blood alcohol level is tricky to calculate and could have risen or fallen in the time it took to get him tested at the station.

The summary is you don't have a clue you are making assumptions in order to defend someone who admits drink driving and could have easily killed someone, especially given the age of the driver he hit.

Why are you so keen to make excuses for him?

5t.

mark5

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

Just had a quick Google and could only find (from Surrey police)

Why have the police seized my car?

[FONT=Verdana,Verdana][FONT=Verdana,Verdana]Section 165A Road Traffic Act 1988 gives police the power to seize vehicles which are being driven by uninsured drivers or drivers who do not have a valid driving licence or where a vehicle has failed to stop when required by police and there is a suspicion that the vehicle is uninsured. Driving without insurance and/or driving licence is viewed by Surrey Police as anti-social behaviour. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Verdana]So from that I don't know if they can just seize them because they feel like it. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Verdana]What would happen if he still had finance outstanding as well? He'd have to pay that off and have nothing to show for it, so it's bump the 'fine' up to, what, £45k to £50k ?[/FONT]
[/FONT]

If its got outstanding finance then he hasnt paid for the car to begin with so the fine isnt bumped to 45-50k!

mikey72

fivetide wrote: »

Really?

I suspect you are just playing daft.

So you KNOW that he went home and had more drink right? Because hey, he's unlikely to go home for a coffee.

Either that or.... [shock] :eek: he's just saying that to try and get off with it.

You also seem to know that he went home and had enough to put him up to three times over. I mean you've stated he was below the three times limit when he had the accident. How do you know that?

Can you gaze into your crystal ball and tell us how many he'd had when he hit the car? Had he really just had two pints was only a bit over then went home and necked four more pints? (could be double whiskys - I'm sure you can tell me).

Does your crystal ball also tell you whether he nipped in the door and immediately ploughed into the drink or did he wait a bit? Remember blood alcohol level is tricky to calculate and could have risen or fallen in the time it took to get him tested at the station.

The summary is you don't have a clue you are making assumptions in order to defend someone who admits drink driving and could have easily killed someone, especially given the age of the driver he hit.

Why are you so keen to make excuses for him?

5t.

Because he's innocent until proven guilty.

He's admitted he had a drink, and admitted to driving under the influence.
Due to a change of law, if he was caught driving three times over, his car can now be taken.

He wasn't caught driving three time over, he was only found at home, having claimed to have had a few more drinks after he'd been driving.

At to forming opinions, you said you didn't believe him in your first post. Obviously your crystal ball is better than mine.

What's more likely.

An oil rig worker, who's half cut, having a crash, going home without stopping, and cracking open the whyte and mackay?

Or going home, and putting the kettle on.

In the law you've quoted the newscutting of, the first one won't give them grounds to take the car, the second will.

You can't prove either.

(back to his rights again, like them or not)

scheming_gypsy

mark5 wrote: »

If its got outstanding finance then he hasnt paid for the car to begin with so the fine isnt bumped to 45-50k!

who pays the outstanding finance then if they seize his car?
who then doesn't have a car to show for the money?
who then can't sell that car because he can't drive it?

fivetide

mikey72 wrote: »

Because he's innocent until proven guilty.

not if he's admitted it he isn't. The charge is driving under the influence. He's guilty but hey, thanks for playing.

He's admitted he had a drink, and admitted to driving under the influence.
Due to a change of law, if he was caught driving three times over, his car can now be taken.

Correct. so you can comprehend some things then?

He wasn't caught driving three time over, he was only found at home, having claimed to have had a few more drinks after he'd been driving.

No you claimed (and I highlighted it) he was under three at the time of the crash.

You still don't know that do you?

My point again is that what he claims and what may have happened are different things. Remember he could have been at nearly 4 times over the limit and the level in his blood could have dropped since the crash too. You don't seem to be takign that into account.

The fact it drops down again is why it is important for police to get them to the official machine at the first opportunity.

At to forming opinions, you said you didn't believe him in your first post. Obviously your crystal ball is better than mine.

Nothing to do with a crystal ball. You've claimed facts (see above that he was under the three times level) where I have expressed an opinion. www.dictionary.com if you need to check the difference.

What's more likely.

An oil rig worker, who's half cut, having a crash, going home without stopping, and cracking open the whyte and mackay?

Or going home, and putting the kettle on.

And why does it matter? The question posed is is it disproportionate. I say no. You've spouted a lot of guff by not actually commented on the question posed.

In the law you've quoted the newscutting of, the first one won't give them grounds to take the car, the second will.

You can't prove either.

I don't need to. I'm not the prosecutor fiscal.

(back to his rights again, like them or not)

No. Back to "is the punishment disproportionate" as that is the title of the thread.

Agian, as you failed to spot, he's guilty of drink driving. He admits it. He crashed a high powered car and could have killed someone. He might lose his car. If he does, is that disproportionate? No it isn't.

The lawyers need to argue the rest of it. you'll note my first post was to highlight that we don't have all the info. This could be the second or third time he's been caught. Still disproportionate?

Sorry you are still sore about that other thread (even though you claimed you weren't - pattern forming here, claiming things that clearly aren't true). I wasn't even that involved.

5t.