drink driving question?

Spendless

Guest101 wrote: »

the company are the owners, he is the registered keeper. or he should be as he is keeping the vehicle.

I meant as in his name appears on the log book. My husband has driven company vehicles for over a quarter of a centuary, we have never had the log book in our possession, let alone his name appear on it.

Guest101

Janepig wrote: »

If this individual was suspected to have been driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol then (as some have already mentioned) he would have been breathalysed at the roadside, then taken in for a further breath test, and that is the reading they prosecute at. If they suspect he was under the influence of drugs then they would have taken samples for toxicology tests. If the breath tests are close to the 35mcg limit then you are offered blood or urine tests, which can often bring the reading down to below 35 and the prosecution will not continue.

If this person has blown a reading that is clearly over the limit then he will have been charged and bailed and would have signed a bail sheet at the police station (he'd have kept a copy) which would have given him a date to appear at Court on it. Failing that, he would be bailed back to a date when the toxicology tests come back, they take a bit longer. If he has been given a date to appear at Court then he needs to find that bit of paper asap because afaik they don't write to you, they expect you to turn up on the date you were given and if you don't they'll put a warrant out for your arrest.

Rarely, if ever, does anyone go not guilty on a drink drive charge, and believe me, it's one of those offences that is bread and butter to a Magistrates Court. You can argue that your drink was spiked, you can say it's the first time ever (honest Guv) that you "took a chance", you can say "I only had two pints", I've heard every excuse under the sun, but if you blow over 35mcg then you can't really wriggle out of it, try as you might.

Jx

I believe atually if you blow 40 or under, they do not prosecute, to allow for varience. (the legal limit is 35, but that is policy)

and between 40 and 49 you can choose to do either urine or blood. Do blood, doctors late at night would take a while to get there.

Over 50mg is where you get charged.

Certainly there are plenty of defences: calibrated machine, police procedure, failure to caution, etc.

Any

Spendless wrote: »

I meant as in his name appears on the log book. My husband has driven company vehicles for over a quarter of a centuary, we have never had the log book in our possession, let alone his name appear on it.

Most companies don't have the log book either.
The vehicles are in 90% of cases on contract hire and the owner is actually the hire company, not the employer.

Janepig

Guest101 wrote: »

I believe atually if you blow 40 or under, they do not prosecute, to allow for varience. (the legal limit is 35, but that is policy)

and between 40 and 49 you can choose to do either urine or blood. Do blood, doctors late at night would take a while to get there.

Over 50mg is where you get charged.

Certainly there are plenty of defences: calibrated machine, police procedure, failure to caution, etc.

I've seen plenty of cases where people have been charged and gone to Court for less than 50 in breath (or the equivalent blood/urine). In fact, it's often part of what he defence solicitor will say, that they were only a couple of mg over the limit. It might be an area thing, maybe CPS in one area take a view that the CPS in another area don't.

Obviously there are defences as mentioned above, however, of the three you mentioned, whilst they obviously exist and for good reason, I've not seen anyone go not guilty for one of those reasons in over ten years working at a Magistrates Court. What most people try to say in their defence comes under "ignorance is no defence" .

Jx

Spendless

Any wrote: »

Most companies don't have the log book either.
The vehicles are in 90% of cases on contract hire and the owner is actually the hire company, not the employer.

Yes, I'm aware, though I have no idea of figures. My husband's car has always been bought (owned) outright by his employer (2 different ones in the time I've known him) and sold on at the end of their 'time' (x many year or x many miles whichever comes first).

I'll try again with what I was trying to ask. If you are pulled over whilst driving a company car. the reg number of that car won't automatically (as in there and then)link you to yourself, as the reg number will be linked to the owner/keeper of the car (who in turn know who is likely to have been driving the car). This is why I asked the OP if the 'drink driver' is saying that his boss would have been told if it was true. Is he saying that the police would know who his employer is (from the reg number, even if it is registered to a lease company who in turn say who lease the vehicle from them) and would get in touch with them (either directly or via the lease company) to say someone driving company car xyz 123 was stopped and found to be over legal limit?.

Since the site was down last night, I put this conundrum to DH if he was stopped for drink driving if his company would be informed because he is driving their car and he didn't think they would be. Having never been through the experience though and knowing no-one who has he couldn't say for definate.

geoffky

Janepig wrote: »

Obviously there are defences as mentioned above, however, of the three you mentioned, whilst they obviously exist and for good reason, I've not seen anyone go not guilty for one of those reasons in over ten years working at a Magistrates Court. What most people try to say in their defence comes under "ignorance is no defence" .

Jx

Janepig.....I am on pepipoo quite a bit and it is common for someone to come back to us with a not guilty/discontinued as the police messed up the procedure that they must follow to the letter to enable them to convict but i should imagine not many get as far as you once the errors are pointed out to the cps...
But we see time and again where the police have messed up the procedure by not reading the process they must follow..

Janepig

geoffky wrote: »

Janepig.....I am on pepipoo quite a bit and it is common for someone to come back to us with a not guilty/discontinued as the police messed up the procedure that they must follow to the letter to enable them to convict but i should imagine not many get as far as you once the errors are pointed out to the cps...
But we see time and again where the police have messed up the procedure by not reading the process they must follow..

In fairness I suppose I wouldn't know about the amount that are discontinued before they get to Court, it may be quite afew, I'm not sure. But of the ones that do get to Court, they're pretty much watertight in my experience.

ETA, I also wonder how many of the guilty pleas might have ended up as not guilty or discontinued if the defendant got a lawyer to pick holes in the case with a fine toothcomb rather than just the duty solicitor who wants to push the case through asap.

Jx

geoffky

Janepig wrote: »

In fairness I suppose I wouldn't know about the amount that are discontinued before they get to Court, it may be quite afew, I'm not sure. But of the ones that do get to Court, they're pretty much watertight in my experience.

ETA, I also wonder how many of the guilty pleas might have ended up as not guilty or discontinued if the defendant got a lawyer to pick holes in the case with a fine toothcomb rather than just the duty solicitor who wants to push the case through asap.

Jx

A fair few...A well known motoring solicitor (not the obvious one) reckons that as much as 30% of the d&d cases he looks at have procedural error in them and that is a get out of jail card for d&d.
Have you seen the procedure forms?...If a go to c and if c got to f ect ect.