Pleading not guilty to drink driving

Ergates

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.

Nothing in what the OP has said suggests they are "playing games" at all.

Car_54

TooManyPoints wrote: »

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.

The lack of keys seems to provide a watertight defence. The law actually says "It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1)(b) above to prove that at the time he is alleged to have committed the offence the circumstances were such that there was no likelihood of his driving the vehicle whilst the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine remained likely to exceed the prescribed limit."

DUTR

Ergates wrote: »

Nothing in what the OP has said suggests they are "playing games" at all.

Said here or in the other thread? where she is holding property of the said harraser as she believes he owes her money.

leviathan

AdrianC wrote: »

The legislation is very clear. Driving, attempting to drive, being in charge of a vehicle - all offences. The only defence is if it can be proven there was no likelihood of driving the vehicle.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/5

Benzanna wrote: »

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.

And to add to an earlier poster that's ground for likely getting off.
No keys means no likelyhood thus he's sitting in a car he might as well be sitting on a bench.


Not a lawyer but aware of a friend who was convicted of drunk driving despite not have any intent on driving but having the keys whilst asleep in the back of the car following a party rather than driving home. He was told if the keys had been elsewhere he would have got off. That was several years ago for what it's worth.

DUTR

leviathan wrote: »

And to add to an earlier poster that's ground for likely getting off.
No keys means no likelyhood thus he's sitting in a car he might as well be sitting on a bench.


Not a lawyer but aware of a friend who was convicted of drunk driving despite not have any intent on driving but having the keys whilst asleep in the back of the car following a party rather than driving home. He was told if the keys had been elsewhere he would have got off. That was several years ago for what it's worth.

It's still sort of true today.
In your post the quote shows that the OP had taken the keys from a violent drunk whilst locked in the bathroom :eek:

leviathan

Yeah, the OP's story is like swiss cheese, but going by what is posted I assumed they had teleportation technology.

TooManyPoints

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.

If they had no evidence to support a reasonable prospect of a conviction they would not have charged him. They don't only charge people whom they think will plead guilty and bottle out when they don't. If he puts forward a defence such as that suggested without mentioning it previously the CPS may decide to let it run and let a court decide just how strong that defence is when scrutinised. Of course, the hurdle he may face is that if he presents a defence that he had not previously mentioned, especially in interview, the court may wonder why that is ("...but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something you later rely on in court").

But once again, we are being drip-fed bits and pieces and, we don't know the entire story, so it's all speculation.

Car_54

TooManyPoints wrote: »

If they had no evidence to support a reasonable prospect of a conviction they would not have charged him. They don't only charge people whom they think will plead guilty and bottle out when they don't. If he puts forward a defence such as that suggested without mentioning it previously the CPS may decide to let it run and let a court decide just how strong that defence is when scrutinised. Of course, the hurdle he may face is that if he presents a defence that he had not previously mentioned, especially in interview, the court may wonder why that is ("...but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something you later rely on in court").

But once again, we are being drip-fed bits and pieces and, we don't know the entire story, so it's all speculation.

I didn’t mention it because I was too drunk to think clearly ....?

George333

TooManyPoints wrote: »

If they had no evidence to support a reasonable prospect of a conviction they would not have charged him. They don't only charge people whom they think will plead guilty and bottle out when they don't. If he puts forward a defence such as that suggested without mentioning it previously the CPS may decide to let it run and let a court decide just how strong that defence is when scrutinised. Of course, the hurdle he may face is that if he presents a defence that he had not previously mentioned, especially in interview, the court may wonder why that is ("...but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something you later rely on in court").

But once again, we are being drip-fed bits and pieces and, we don't know the entire story, so it's all speculation.

Excess alcohol/drunk in charge are police charges first the CPS will know about it is when the file lands with them.

Given there's no evidence he's driven and the OP took his keys I think the police have dropped the ball somewhat. Evidentially it's no where near ready for trial.

George333

Car_54 wrote: »

I didn’t mention it because I was too drunk to think clearly ....?

I'm sure his legal representative would have raised that the following morning if he's wasn't fit for interview.