Pleading not guilty to drink driving

Benzanna

DUTR wrote: »

You are playing games though, we weren't there to know the full ins and outs, however generally a visitor does try and smash a door in, if he really wanted to get in, he could simply and easier smash a window, hiding in the bathroom? not wise (ask the 400m metre ex runner ) , you weren't at the station to hear what he told the police .
AND alcohol in the blood doesn't just appear and disappear, there are easy tests to know when the excess alcohol was consumed.

He tried to smash the window. He was too drunk to get a rock or use anything other than his fists. I'm not here to slander my ex - I just want people's knowledge and advice on what may happen next. The police told me to lock myself in the bathroom whilst I was on the 999 call. The police informed me he didn't give a statement as he was advised by his free legal aid not to.

DUTR

Benzanna wrote: »

He tried to smash the window. He was too drunk to get a rock or use anything other than his fists. I'm not here to slander my ex - I just want people's knowledge and advice on what may happen next. The police told me to lock myself in the bathroom whilst I was on the 999 call. The police informed me he didn't give a statement as he was advised by his free legal aid not to.

Nothing may happen next is the reality.
It's not a random visit and with a history of domestic issues, it's not a simple argument that you may win.
The 3 magistrates are not going to ignore the cause to the effect.

George333

Benzanna wrote: »

Possible ANPR? I'm sure there are other ways to prove it?

ANPR wont say who was driving.

AdrianC

Benzanna wrote: »

The car was not there the day before. He was sat in the car when the police arrived, although at that point I had his car keys as I managed to take them off him to stop him driving - the police said this was the right thing to do.

Yes, it was. But there's his "no likelihood" defence, right there.

Drip, drip.

George333

AdrianC wrote: »

Yes, it was. But there's his "no likelihood" defence, right there.

Drip, drip.

You were saying?

AdrianC wrote: »

No way on this planet is he going to prove to a court there was no "likelihood" of him driving.

AdrianC

George333 wrote: »

You were saying?

Yes, I was- based on the information we'd been given at the time.

Benzanna wrote: »

A month ago my ex drove to my house extremely drunk. He then tried to smash through my front door (but didn't succeed)

I called the police. By the time they arrived he'd stopped smashing his fists into my door and windows and was sitting in his car.

He was arrested.

Where in that does it say that the OP was anything but barricaded in the house, with a drunk and violent ex outside trying to get in?

Next thing we know, the OP has actually managed to negotiate his car keys off him.

We aren't psychic, OP. If you want answers, give ALL the information.

TooManyPoints

There's far too many unknowns to bicker and speculate. The possibilities are these:

1. Convicted for driving with excess alcohol. Chances - very unlikely as there is no evidence he was driving at the time he took a roadside breath test. "Back calculation" is a possibility.

2. Convicted of "in charge" with excess alcohol. Chances - less likely now we know he had no keys to the car and may use the "no possibility he may drive" defence. It would be for a court to decide if getting into the car and perhaps then realising he had no keys amounts to an attempt to drive.

3. Acquitted on either charge. Chances - a good possibility, but as I said, far too many details lacking.

If he is convicted of "in charge" a ban is by no means a certainty. Whether a ban is imposed depends very much on the alcohol level. It is not a consideration until a reading of 60 (in breath, where the limit is 35) is recorded. It remains a consideration, not a certainty, up to 119. Only at 120 and above is it virtually certain.

Bear in mind that a trial on such a matter will take half day at least. We've been told (partly) what happened in a couple of hundred words.

George333

TooManyPoints wrote: »

There's far too many unknowns to bicker and speculate. The possibilities are these:

1. Convicted for driving with excess alcohol. Chances - very unlikely as there is no evidence he was driving at the time he took a roadside breath test. "Back calculation" is a possibility.

2. Convicted of "in charge" with excess alcohol. Chances - less likely now we know he had no keys to the car and may use the "no possibility he may drive" defence. It would be for a court to decide if getting into the car and perhaps then realising he had no keys amounts to an attempt to drive.

3. Acquitted on either charge. Chances - a good possibility, but as I said, far too many details lacking.

If he is convicted of "in charge" a ban is by no means a certainty. Whether a ban is imposed depends very much on the alcohol level. It is not a consideration until a reading of 60 (in breath, where the limit is 35) is recorded. It remains a consideration, not a certainty, up to 119. Only at 120 and above is it virtually certain.

Bear in mind that a trial on such a matter will take half day at least. We've been told (partly) what happened in a couple of hundred words.

You missed off number 4 and the most likely given the information so far. The matter will be discharged and the charges dropped.

TooManyPoints

You missed off number 4 and the most likely given the information so far. The matter will be discharged and the charges dropped.

Agreed. But since he's already been charged (as far as we know) and entered a plea (as far as we know) and subsequently changed it (as far as we know) it seems unlikely. I imagine the first plea (of guilty) was not a plea at all but an indication made to the police of his intentions (likely guilty pleas and likely not guilty pleas are listed in different court sessions in many areas). If he had pleaded guilty in court he would have been convicted there and then and been sentenced immediately (unless a probation report was required to consider a sentence other than a fine).

George333

TooManyPoints wrote: »

Agreed. But since he's already been charged (as far as we know) and entered a plea (as far as we know) and subsequently changed it (as far as we know) it seems unlikely. I imagine the first plea (of guilty) was not a plea at all but an indication made to the police of his intentions (likely guilty pleas and likely not guilty pleas are listed in different court sessions in many areas). If he had pleaded guilty in court he would have been convicted there and then and been sentenced immediately (unless a probation report was required to consider a sentence other than a fine).

Why do you think it's unlikely?

He submits his defence and the police either have no evidence to support the charge or evidence that seriously undermines the prosecution.