Pleading not guilty to drink driving

Benzanna

AdrianC wrote: »

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


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.

I got the keys when he first turned up. He tried to get in the house and I had the chain on. I said I wanted my keys back. He was to drunk to take it off the key fob so I said give them to me, I'll do it. I then realised I shouldn't give the keys back.

He tried to push through the chain. I managed to get the door shut and locked as he lost his balance. He then started trying to smash his way in. Screaming "you f*cking !!!!!" "give me my keys" over and over.
So the intent to drive was there regardless of no keys.

George333

Benzanna wrote: »

I got the keys when he first turned up. He tried to get in the house and I had the chain on. I said I wanted my keys back. He was to drunk to take it off the key fob so I said give them to me, I'll do it. I then realised I shouldn't give the keys back.

He tried to push through the chain. I managed to get the door shut and locked as he lost his balance. He then started trying to smash his way in. Screaming "you f*cking !!!!!" "give me my keys" over and over.
So the intent to drive was there regardless of no keys.

Sound like he wanted the keys back, why is mere speculation.

My bet is he'll get off due to a police !!!! up. You should have given a statement on the night and he should have been charged with using violence to secure entry. So much for a thorough investigation into a domestic abuse incident.

TooManyPoints

My bet is he'll get off due to a police !!!! up

Yes George, as the drips of information form into a puddle I'm inclined to agree, though I'd like to think it is because there is no evidence more than anything else.

To support the "driving" charge they would have to prove that he was over the limit when he arrived. They might struggle. But....if there is no evidence that he had obtained alcohol between arriving and being tested there may be a chance. There should not be too much trouble proving that he drove to get there and what time he arrived.

The "in charge" offence seems a complete non-runner. He had no keys and there was absolutely no chance of him driving.

The domestic violence matter is something else entirely but I don't think we're being asked about that.

Car_54

Benzanna wrote: »

So the intent to drive was there regardless of no keys.

Intent is irrelevant for the offences in question.

George333

TooManyPoints wrote: »

Yes George, as the drips of information form into a puddle I'm inclined to agree, though I'd like to think it is because there is no evidence more than anything else.

To support the "driving" charge they would have to prove that he was over the limit when he arrived. They might struggle. But....if there is no evidence that he had obtained alcohol between arriving and being tested there may be a chance. There should not be too much trouble proving that he drove to get there and what time he arrived.

The "in charge" offence seems a complete non-runner. He had no keys and there was absolutely no chance of him driving.

The domestic violence matter is something else entirely but I don't think we're being asked about that.

So you don't think it was an error to charge without evidence?

Interesting point of view, maybe you'd like to expand further.

I'm also interested to see what evidence you think there is that he's driven. The police haven't seen him drive hence the interview, if they had it would be straight to charge.

The OP has seen him drive but hasn't provided a statement, they haven't expanded on the other witnesses.

You were keen to point out the caution earlier, something about it harming his defence. Unless the police had the evidence he had driven then any inference from failing to answer won't carry any weight in court.

TooManyPoints

So you don't think it was an error to charge without evidence?

I simply don't know, George. I don't know what evidence they have. We were told he had pleaded guilty (though I doubt it) and so should have seen the evidence against him. We don't know what he was charged with. We don't know whether he was represented by the duty solicitor on his first appearance (as he would have been entitled to do) and if so how he was advised. We don't know whether he gave a "no comment" interview. We don't know whether any alcohol was found in his car (so making a "hip flask" defence to driving more feasible). We don't know what, if any statements were taken from others. There's probably an awful lot more we don't know.

What the OP posed as (in her understanding) a fairly simple question is not simple at all and is almost impossible to answer with the very limited information available. My mind keeps changing as I learn the next drip of information and whilst it's an interesting debate, it will not lead (me, at least) to a proper conclusion.

George333

Sounds like he went no comment according to the opening post.

Benzanna

DUTR wrote: »

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

I didn't hold his property at any point. I asked for advice as I had partially paid for the bike. I gave him every single one of his belongings. I'm not looking for tit for tat.

AdrianC

Car_54 wrote: »

Intent is irrelevant for the offences in question.

"Intent" and "likelihood" are certainly in the same direction, so "irrelevant" is more than a little strong.

DUTR

Benzanna wrote: »

I didn't hold his property at any point. I asked for advice as I had partially paid for the bike. I gave him every single one of his belongings. I'm not looking for tit for tat.

Your thread suggests so..."My now ex (after getting arrested today for drink driving to my house and acting violently) owes me money. It's only £300, but I want it back.

The money was to help him buy a £1700 bike (£300 paid by me, the rest paid for by his parents)

I made the actual transaction online in my name.

I don't want to take more than he owes me, although he's been living rent free for months and made no contributions towards bills.

His parents are coming to collect him and his belongings once he's been released.

Can I withold the bike until I am paid?

I have it in writing (text) that he owes me the money, and also that the bike I bought was for him.

Advice appreciated. Thanks "

We don't want tit for tat either, too many all blokes are bad type threads floating about.
You could just leave him be and late fate and the law deal with him.