Facing court and potential driving ban - any advice?

epsilondraconis

s_b wrote: »

i was pulled at least 15 times at least once a week,i left the county at the time to get away from harassment (it wasnt durham by the way but a different county where police had nothing to do all day back then )

Didn't Roger Whittaker have issues with Durham Town - perhaps he kept being pulled over by the fuzz?

s_b

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

So what's the name of this sytem?

how the heck should i know the name
i had a friend work there at the time and showed me the screen with all my details on hair colour etc as i explained

if you were a real policeman rather than a cardboard cutout from a fictional bad band you would know this but ive said this to you before when you come over all beaky but dont have a hat or badge to wear

Happychappy

interstellaflyer wrote: »

"he asked about blood but said it was optional and if i rejected it it would not be a bad thing"

Sounds like the officer doing the breath test took advantage of the fact that the OP was fully co-operative and afraid of needles by talking the OP out of it, basically because on those figures he knew damned well that due to the extra time the blood test results would show under the limit.

Are you suggesting the officer had some motive to ensure the person was over the limit? what a load of tosh, or is it coppers are on commission, you make my !!!! life........:rotfl:

The poster drank too much now wants to get away without coughing up more than a weeks beer money, tough luck, hope it's a three year ban but it won't be, just 12 months and hopefully a big enough insurance bill in the future to put her off driving. Plead guilty or not guilty, really doesn't matter, nor doesn't anything you say, the bench hears it day after day, and the police don't give a stuff if you say sorry, you had the choice to drink and drive and you took it, so :beer: i'll drink to that.

HappyMJ

bamme wrote: »

thanks everyone could i ask these questions i posted earlier, based on jamie's thread?

Originally Posted by Crazy Jamie
...you will also receive a further punishment, which at the lower bracket is likely to be a fine. This will be relative to your income, and at Band C (which is the recommended level for the bracket) is a starting point of 150% of your relevant weekly income.

Question 1: I am currently unemployed and in receipt of jobseekers allowance (wow i am really seeming like im a great success in life so far, right..). i therefore dont earn but am given £50/week to live. Would the fine therefore be £75? Would they take into account I was in receipt of this benefit or would this be something I'd have to explain to them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy Jamie
...You will then have an opportunity to put forward mitigation. This is where you explain your personal circumstances (i.e. what you've mentioned in your first post). It is a good idea to acknowledge that you will receive a ban and a fine, and ask that the Court is lenient given your previous record and circumstances. Apologising is also a very good idea. The Magistrates will then impose the sentence.

Question 2: I see, thanks very much. I am nervous about any specific way to put forward this mitigation.. should i formally write it out first then read it?

i don't want to seem all "umm.;. umm.. but it wasnt my fault.." as that's not what i'd be trying to do, but i get the idea there are certain ways to speak in court and im notoriously bad at speaking or explaining when nervous or before writing things down.

are there specific things i should say or ways of speaking, or specific things - as i read on an advice site - to actually not say, cause they will have all been heard before and will irritate/aggravate things? (such as "i was breathalised before on this amount, and was fine, but have since lost a lot of weight" or "the police man said he didn't think i seemed drunk and let me go")

And, in my mitigation, must i straight up ask for the fine to be reduced?? or do i simply put across the points and wait for the judge to decide?

Originally Posted by Crazy Jamie
The charge is then put to you, and you indicate that you plead guilty. The Prosecutor will explain the facts of the case to the Magistrates.

Question 3: Again, is there a good or 'done' way to say this and plead guilty? Or do you just say what comes naturally to say..?

You do not say anything. You get a solicitor....If you can't afford one you can use the duty solicitor at the court free of charge on the day. Do not whatever you do actually drive to the court on the day. The disqulaification is immediate and if you are caught driving you can be quite sure you will get a longer disqualification and/or a prison sentence. The magistrates do not take kindly to people ignoring the sentence.

The fine you get can be repaid in tiny weekly instalments if you really have no spare income.

Sgt_Pepper_2

s_b wrote: »

how the heck should i know the name
i had a friend work there at the time and showed me the screen with all my details on hair colour etc as i explained

if you were a real policeman rather than a cardboard cutout from a fictional bad band you would know this but ive said this to you before when you come over all beaky but dont have a hat or badge to wear

I know you talk a load of crap.

interstellaflyer

Happychappy wrote: »

Are you suggesting the officer had some motive to ensure the person was over the limit? what a load of tosh, or is it coppers are on commission, you make my !!!! life........:rotfl:

I'm suggestingt that the police had positive breath test and a definate conviction and it was not in their intrest for the OP to opt for a blood test, these days with the police, it's all about figures and clear up rates, and would a Police officer do anything for a conviction, would a Police officer twist band exagerate details of an incident to get a conviction, you bet your life they would, talking as someone who's been on the recieving end and now have a criminal record fro section 5 public order because a Police Officer grossly exagerated and twisted a set of events and blatently lied in court, magistrates and judges always believe the Police by default.

s_b

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

I know you talk a load of crap.

its you that does that
i just bring it to the attention of the world
and then watch you flounder in your own pit

Crazy_Jamie

HappyMJ wrote: »

You do not say anything. You get a solicitor....If you can't afford one you can use the duty solicitor at the court free of charge on the day.

Incorrect I'm afraid. Legal aid is not available for driving cases, and therefore the duty solicitor will not be able to assist at Court. I have already mentioned this before, but a solicitor really isn't necessary in this case. I know people have an instinct to seek the advice of a solicitor in relation to a process that they do not understand, and that is entirely natural, but unless something is clearly amiss (which doesn't appear to be the case here), a solicitor really is just a waste of money in cases like this.

Crazy_Jamie

Happychappy wrote:

hope it's a three year ban but it won't be, just 12 months and hopefully a big enough insurance bill in the future to put her off driving. Plead guilty or not guilty, really doesn't matter, nor doesn't anything you say, the bench hears it day after day, and the police don't give a stuff if you say sorry, you had the choice to drink and drive and you took it

This is a rather unsavoury mix of malicious and inaccurate. Your reasons for wanting a three year ban are your own, but the plea that is entered certainly does make a difference, if nothing else to the level of costs that will be applied for and potentially awarded. After trial they are significantly more than when a plea is entered at the first opportunity.

chris1973

The older you get, the less the extra premium for a drink drive ban inflicts. I put in my dad's birth year (1945) and with a drink drive conviction, they only want £448 from him! I pay more than that for my insurance and I don't have anything as serious as a drink drive or any claims!

That just shows how stupid the insurance industry is. Unlike an accident, Driving over the limit is entirely a pre-meditated decision based entirely on the knowledge of when you last had a drink and the ability to decide on whether you are fit to drive, or whether to call a cab / friend and err on the side of caution and this logic and decision process and the responsibility for doing it, applies to any driver equally, whatever their age.

I'm actually shocked that a person convicted of knowingly driving whilst drunk can obtan a lower premium than somebody with full no claims, no convictions, 20 years clean driving history, and who has the intelligence to remember when he last had a drink, and is mature enough to plan his social activities around his driving responsibilities.

But if your post is accurate, then it seems that is the case. It sends out entirely the wrong message, in other words, insurers and perhaps even society in general say its effectively 'OK' to drink drive if you are in your 60's because you'll still be rewarded with low premiums when you get your license back. Premiums which are lower than most middle aged people pay, who have a clean license and no history of D&D

So lets have the information as to who exactly which insurer is quoting this, because as somebody with a clean record who routinely pays £550+ for insurance, I think it needs taking to national press, when insurers 'reward' low premiums to those who have previously been convicted of knowingly, willfully and even smugly putting the lives of others at risk, through a catalogue made up of entirely THEIR OWN decisions and choices.