Another p#ssed system player ?

[anonymous-user]

Don't think it's up yet but

'Friend of Prince William claims police breathalyser which found him over drink drive limit is wrong because his mobile signal interfered with the reading'
http://dailym.ai/MXZLn0

Just out of interest how far do people generally go to bend the truth or get off with stuff ?

Rather than just hold their hands up and admit to being over ?

[anonymous-user]

The case law on drink-driving is comical. Just about everything has been tried. A top defence lawyer can have a fair go at introducing reasonable doubt even if everything is done perfectly. It sound like some real bullst questions were asked like what frequency adjacent police radios were on etc.

I don't understand how it's not clear cut whether or not he had his phone on him or not. Surely that would be on camera?

[Andehh]

So was it a R8 or a TT, the daily mail can't decide.... fking useless rag.

[agtlaw]

La Liga said:

a fair go at introducing reasonable doubt

Probably a misunderstanding of the very strict procedural requirements pertaining to drink driving.

I don't think much of his mobile phone interference defence - there must be more to it than reported.

[anonymous-user]

agtlaw said:

There must be more to it than reported.

Like what
Namedropping and implied threats ?

Hopefully if the person concerned is honourable they wouldn't use those sorts of things to try to 'influence' an outcome would they?

Maybe I'm just cynical nowadays and not very politically astute when I see and have heard 1st hand some of the things that go on.

[s3fella]

Sounds like a twit.

[agtlaw]

speedyguy said:

Like what?

Like the police 'messed up' the procedure. There is a lot of case law on this. Nothing to do with reasonable doubt. Radio or mobile phone interference is a piss poor defence. Must be something else.

[0a]

Andehh said:

So was it a R8 or a TT, the daily mail can't decide.... fking useless rag.

To be fair they look pretty similar, maybe it was one of those TTs with the fake sideblades that seem pretty common. ( )

[Drek]

Andehh said:

So was it a R8 or a TT, the daily mail can't decide.... fking useless rag.

You obviously didn't read the article properly. They also said he was in an Audio R8. Shame on you for missing that.

[Snowboy]

It'll be the lawyers making up the silly stories - not the drunk toff.

[ferrariF50lover]

Snowboy said:

It'll be the lawyers making up the silly stories - not the drunk toff.

Lawyers act on instruction, they don't tell the client what happened, the client tells them, then they apply that story to the law. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Simon.

[tbc]

He'll get off altogether or else they'll give him a hefty fine.

The hefty fine will be the equivalent to one less Pimms at the Henley Regatta.

Everyone know if your a hooray Henry you just get poked with the tip.

If your Joe Public you get the full shaft and balls treatment

[Cliftonite]

Is refusing to take a breath test at the roadside not an offence in itself? Or does taking a test later on an 'evidential machine' at the police station excuse you from that?

[9mm]

Cliftonite said:

Is refusing to take a breath test at the roadside not an offence in itself? Or does taking a test later on an 'evidential machine' at the police station excuse you from that?

I always thought it was an offence to refuse the roadside test and that it carries similar penalties to proven dd.

[anonymous-user]

ferrariF50lover said:

Snowboy said:

It'll be the lawyers making up the silly stories - not the drunk toff.

Lawyers act on instruction, they don't tell the client what happened, the client tells them, then they apply that story to the law. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Simon.

I didn't want to say that Snowboy.

Maybe the lawyer 'advises' the client on what to say before being instructed rather than after, perish the thought.

TBC may have a point but it may not have been picked up by the press or have no interest if it was Joe public.

[Zoobeef]

What's an Audio R8?

[Drek]

Zoobeef said:

What's an Audio R8?

Ask the Daily Mail.

[Cat]

9mm said:

Cliftonite said:

Is refusing to take a breath test at the roadside not an offence in itself? Or does taking a test later on an 'evidential machine' at the police station excuse you from that?

I always thought it was an offence to refuse the roadside test and that it carries similar penalties to proven dd.

Refusing a preliminary (roadside) breath test, without reasonable excuse, is an offence. The penalty for refusing a preliminary test is a fine of up to £1000 and 4 points/discretionary ban. This is lower than for refusing an evidential test at the station which carries the same potential penalties as providing a positive specimen.

Cat

[jesta1865]

sorry to ask this slightly off topic, but are there medicines that can give a false reading, i just seem to remember someone using cough mixture or mouth wash and it saying they were over the limit when they hadn't had a drink.

i only ask as my wife and i were talking about it last night, i was going to post a new thread, but as there are BiB on this one then I thought i'd ask, thanks.

[MGJohn]

If the Toff gets off it will be further proof positive that British Legal system and Justice is the best money can buy.