Drink Driver not guilty plea

in0125

I heard a noise and someone had driven into my car. When I went to have a look a guy on foot clearly drunk was looking around my car at the damage. I phoned the police and they cought two guys changing a wheel on their car around the corner. One of them admitted to driving and blew positive. The Police informed me they had a written confession. He pleaded "Not Guilty" in court. The Police won't comment on their expectancy of a conviction. Surely the fact they got a confession means they won't have to actually prove now he was indeed driving.?

user1977

A not guilty plea is often just a means of delaying the inevitable until whenever the case next calls, it doesn't necessarily mean that even the accused thinks they've got a chance of getting away with it (though occasionally they do if e.g. witnesses don't turn up or the prosecution makes a blunder).

sevenhills

If they were drunk when they admitted the offence, it might not be admissible in court?

diystarter7

Hi OP
Sorry about your vehicle and I'm glad the officers caught the ....

Hopefully when this clown is found guilty of DUI, and failing to stop then having the cheek to deny this, the jokers gets a 5 year ban and ordered to pay a victim surcharge.

Best way forward is to contact the police officer leading this case and pick the officer's brains and what to expect.


Years ago a clown drove into to the back of our stationary car in stop, start traffic, he tried to get away but could not as both sides of the road were bottlenecked. It was broad daylight summers Sunday. I went to their car an old banger, and took a picture and told them to pull over they did and initially stated "no damage on your car mate.." and then tried to take the red mark/paint of the back of my bumper with a spit. Then they wanted my details/address etc and they looked vicious - i gave them insurance and mobile but then one of them sore at me and police car car appeared in the nose-to-tail traffic on the other side of the road. I asked them to pull over, they asked me from the car "anyone injured." I said no. The bloke officer said he could not do anything. I told him me and my family were being harassed and felt at risk. They eventually got out of their car and told me I could be arrested for not supply my address. I kept my cool and for a mo thought I was having a nightmare and told them to use their initivative but as luck would have they passenger of the clowns car started swearing at me then the officers. Then they decided to breathelise the guy and noted he was already banned and no ins/ax etc. Anyway, I tried to keep track of the case as it was on the otherside of the river (thats like another country to me) but I kept calling for updates and never got to speak to the lead officer as they were on duty/off/in court etc, Then about 2/3 months later I had a day off work (this is about 20 yrs ago) and rang and spoke to the chief - they rang me the next dau to apologise as the case had got lost in the sytems and missed the deadline for court of something like that,  I got a formally apology, that was great lol as the crim got away with it. I recommended the officers underwent training in areas lacking skills etc- So keep an eye on things but my encounter was 20 years or so ago so hopefully things have improved.  (I've purposley left out a few details that could identify people)

Car_54

in0125 said:

I heard a noise and someone had driven into my car. When I went to have a look a guy on foot clearly drunk was looking around my car at the damage. I phoned the police and they cought two guys changing a wheel on their car around the corner. One of them admitted to driving and blew positive. The Police informed me they had a written confession. He pleaded "Not Guilty" in court. The Police won't comment on their expectancy of a conviction. Surely the fact they got a confession means they won't have to actually prove now he was indeed driving.?

A confession is just another piece of evidence to be considered.
There is no shortage of false confessions - every well-publicised major crime investigation sees people queueing up to confess!

in0125

I guess in my case neither my self or Police actually saw the collision or the vehicle actually being driven. There were 2 people so I guess neither are admitting to driving. So I fear the drink driver will get off due to no proof. I'm sure he would have now sort legal advice and as one of you said if he was drunk when interviewed it might not be admisable in court. As Diystarter7 experienced the Police need to be very organised in their procedures.They should be wise to all the excuses afterwards and get all the evidance. And in my case perhaps keep them in a cell for 8 hours to sober up before interviewing them. Thankfully no one was hurt but the true result will be a reformed drink driver so he never does it again. Rather than a cocky chappy bragging about dodging the bullet.

Aretnap

The prosecution will have to prove that he was driving - that's how prosecutions work. However the fact that he admitted driving at the time can be given as evidence that he was indeed driving. The fact that he was drunk doesn't change this.

Very little evidence is inadmissible in the English legal system. (The notion that large amounts of evidence gets thrown out as inadmissible mostly comes from American TV dramas). It is up to the magistrates to decide how much weight to give the evidence. Unless he can offer an unusually good explanation of why he admitted driving when he actually hadn't driven it's likely that the magistrates will convict.

As above in many cases like this a not guilty plea is simply a delaying tactic - it means he can keep driving for another few weeks before the inevitable ban kicks in. Don't be surprised if he switches to a guilty plea on the morning of the trial.

Nobbie1967

Most likely a ploy to delay the inevitable. I believe the backlog in the courts is very substantial, so could be a year or two of additional driving before the court appearance. They may even change plea at the last moment in the hope of slightly reducing the penalty.

SpudGunPaul

Aretnap said:

The prosecution will have to prove that he was driving - that's how prosecutions work. However the fact that he admitted driving at the time can be given as evidence that he was indeed driving. The fact that he was drunk doesn't change this.

Very little evidence is inadmissible in the English legal system. (The notion that large amounts of evidence gets thrown out as inadmissible mostly comes from American TV dramas). It is up to the magistrates to decide how much weight to give the evidence. Unless he can offer an unusually good explanation of why he admitted driving when he actually hadn't driven it's likely that the magistrates will convict.

As above in many cases like this a not guilty plea is simply a delaying tactic - it means he can keep driving for another few weeks before the inevitable ban kicks in. Don't be surprised if he switches to a guilty plea on the morning of the trial.

The important part is what he said in interview when sober. What if he denied it and the second person turns up in court and admits to driving? There's your drink drive conviction in jeopardy. 

hollie.weimeraner

A DD conviction has no impact on your insurance claim other than it may muddy the waters as to who was driving in terms of being covered by insurance. Has the cars owner admitted liability and declared who was driving to their insurer? If so just let your insurers deal. Be interesting to know who they stated was driving to their insurer

Ditzy_Mitzy

We don't have enough to go on - not the OP's fault as he doesn't either - but my guess is that the defence are looking to cast doubt, post-facto, as to who was actually driving on the night concerned.  Let's call our two men Danny and Ricky and think of a possible route through for the defence:

Both men go out and get drunk and leave in Danny's car, the crash occurs, Danny and Ricky stop round the corner to change the wheel, the police turn up.  Danny says 'It's a fair cop guv'nor, I was driving'.  Danny is breathalysed and gives a positive sample at the roadside, is taken to the police station and gives another positive sample.  He is charged. 

The defence solicitor goes and speaks to Ricky, who says 'Well, it wasn't actually Danny driving that night it was me, but I didn't want to say so because I'm not insured.  Danny took the rap for it and now I feel terrible.'  

Solicitor has a look at Ricky's insurance certificate for his own car and finds 'driving other cars' cover is in place.  Solicitor explains that Ricky was, in fact, insured.  Quick trip to Danny's to explain.  Danny provides a counter statement to the effect of 'I was drunk, yes, but not driving.  I said I was to protect Ricky because I thought he wasn't insured.  I now retract my admission, which was made whilst intoxicated.  I am a very silly boy and very sorry.'  

CPS offer no evidence that Ricky was drunk at the time he was driving.  Criminal case dropped, insurance claim against Danny continues.  Ricky's insurer covers the third party liabilities.  

An unlikely story, but stranger things have happened.  There are manifold reasons why a prosecution for a Section 5 offence may fail in the absence of cast iron evidence of driving.