Is my buddy going to jail???

[Mk3Spitfire]

Shuvi McTupya said:

The only lucky thing for her was that she was not accused of driving her own vehicle. Apparently it would have been taken away? This is scotland BTW. Is that true?

Ah....I thought you might have been north. I don't know how different things are up there. Vehicles can be seized for evidential purposes.

[The Surveyor]

Shuvi McTupya said:

ATM said:

So now she admits driving but claims to have downed a lot of booze after she arrived home then the police have no case - right?

No, she is still to admit or deny anything. However, I would think that a decent lawyer would be able to pick holes in what she has been accused of, given the circumstances.

But she has already admitted it to you, as you indicated in your original thread:-

"....made a silly mistake a few months ago and decided to drive home after a skinful"

[Shuvi McTupya]

Mk3Spitfire said:

She hasn't been to Jail! She was remanded in a police cell. Different things altogether!
And a couple of days b&b with an en-suite and a few quid down the drain might not seem like learning a lesson had someone been killed as a result of her actions.

But, nobody did die, or get hurt so that is not relevant to her case.

Oh, and she didn't have an en suite, she only had access to a shower on the Monday morning, breakfast was non existent too and she couldn't smoke, so in some ways it was worse than prison

Edited by Shuvi McTupya on Tuesday 23 December 15:04

[Shuvi McTupya]

The Surveyor said:

But she has already admitted it to you, as you indicated in your original thread:-

"....made a silly mistake a few months ago and decided to drive home after a skinful"

Ah yes I see what you mean, but she wasn't under oath or anything, she might have been lying to protect erm ..as you were

[IndyH]

Reading through this thread i also got the impression that denying she drove whilst over the limit, and stating she drank at home before bed would have been the easiest defense.

In layman's terms, what would be wrong with this defense (hypothetically if the person did not admit to anything when charged etc and explained this to the police straight away)?

[Mk3Spitfire]

IndyH said:

Reading through this thread i also got the impression that denying she drove whilst over the limit, and stating she drank at home before bed would have been the easiest defense.

In layman's terms, what would be wrong with this defense (hypothetically if the person did not admit to anything when charged etc and explained this to the police straight away)?

There's nothing "wrong" with the hip flask defence at all. But like most other defences, it can be disproved.

[Cat]

Mk3Spitfire said:

Shuvi McTupya said:

The only lucky thing for her was that she was not accused of driving her own vehicle. Apparently it would have been taken away? This is scotland BTW. Is that true?

Ah....I thought you might have been north. I don't know how different things are up there. Vehicles can be seized for evidential purposes.

It wouldn't be seized for evidential purposes. However in cases were the accused has

- a previous drink drive conviction in the last 5 years, or
- provided a specimen over 105ug/100ml of breath, or
- refused to provide at the station

The prosecution can make an application to the court for the vehicle to be forfeited. If the court grants the forfeiture the vehicle will then be seized and sold/destroyed.

As this took place in Scotland the prosecution will need to lead evidence from 2 sources that the OP's friend was driving if they are to secure a conviction. This could be from 2 people who have seen the person driving and who can identify them to the court, it could be from one eye witness and a response to a 172 request by the driver, or other combinations.

Cat

[eldar]

Mk3Spitfire said:

There's nothing "wrong" with the hip flask defence at all. But like most other defences, it can be disproved.

Unless they are truthful defences, I assume?

[Amateurish]

Mk3Spitfire said:

IndyH said:

Reading through this thread i also got the impression that denying she drove whilst over the limit, and stating she drank at home before bed would have been the easiest defense.

In layman's terms, what would be wrong with this defense (hypothetically if the person did not admit to anything when charged etc and explained this to the police straight away)?

There's nothing "wrong" with the hip flask defence at all. But like most other defences, it can be disproved.

So how do they disprove if a suspect says they drank a bottle of gin after they got home? Not doubting you, just interested.

[Cat]

Amateurish said:

So how do they disprove if a suspect says they drank a bottle of gin after they got home? Not doubting you, just interested.

They don't have to disprove it. As Aretnap posted earlier if you intend to rely on a hip flask defence the legislation states that it is for you to prove (on the balance of probability) that you consumed the alcohol after driving and if you hadn't done so you would have been under the limit.

Cat

[covboy]

Amateurish said:

So how do they disprove if a suspect says they drank a bottle of gin after they got home? Not doubting you, just interested.

Link won't work - Extract "I am not sure what queation you are asking but I will assume that you asking how is this done? For the sake of simplity I will assume that you were breathalysed at least two hours after you stopped drinking. This is important because calculations that follow assume that you have absorbed all of the alcohol from your stomach into your body. At this point your blood alcohol level will be a maximum and your breath alcohol will be maxiumum. There is a simple relationship between the amount of alcohol in the blood, breath and urine. After this your body will break down the alochol at a steady rate. This happens mainly in the liver. So for each hour that passes the level of alcohol in your blood and breath will drop by a certain amount. In such calculations we assume that this loss of alcohol occurs at a known average rate. Rememeber, however, that this is an average rate. Some people break it down quicker, others more slowly. So, let's say you breath alcohol level was X units and you lose alcohol at a rate of p units per hour. Then 4 hours later your alcohol level will have dropped by 4 x p. So your alcohol level 4 hours earlier will be ~ X +4p. This is the simplest case. The calculations get quite complicated but I won't bother you with those unless you ask again. Oh, my use of 'units' was to keeps things simple. The actual measure will mg per 100ml blood etc. Don't confuse these with the units of alcohol we drink.
Hope this helps. "

Edited by covboy on Tuesday 23 December 16:03

[The Mad Monk]

Joeguard1990 said:

I might be missing something here... but why not just deny everything and say you were not driving the car?

The Police have no proof she was driving under the influence. You have 1 witness who saw the car being driven. If it comes down to it, just say they are lying and being malicious surely? get a couple of mates to testify you were at home, that sort of thing?

Because that would be untrue.

[mehball]

Why plead not guilty? She either drove drunk or didn't. Go guilty.

[Eclassy]

IndyH said:

Reading through this thread i also got the impression that denying she drove whilst over the limit, and stating she drank at home before bed would have been the easiest defense.

In layman's terms, what would be wrong with this defense (hypothetically if the person did not admit to anything when charged etc and explained this to the police straight away)?

Not letting anyone in would have been the best course of action. Unless the police were in pursuit/witnessed her leave the pub but lost her, they have no right of entry.

If they then forced their way in (they wouldn't) or as in this case someone else let them in, then its always best to remain silent until you have a solicitor/you have had a chance to get yourself together.

Why was she kept in a cell for 3 nights though? Cant people be charged at the weekend?

[The Mad Monk]

IndyH said:

Reading through this thread i also got the impression that denying she drove whilst over the limit, and stating she drank at home before bed would have been the easiest defense.

In layman's terms, what would be wrong with this defense (hypothetically if the person did not admit to anything when charged etc and explained this to the police straight away)?

What would be wrong with this defence?

Apart from the fact that it is untrue, you mean?

[mph1977]

The Mad Monk said:

IndyH said:

Reading through this thread i also got the impression that denying she drove whilst over the limit, and stating she drank at home before bed would have been the easiest defense.

In layman's terms, what would be wrong with this defense (hypothetically if the person did not admit to anything when charged etc and explained this to the police straight away)?

What would be wrong with this defence?

Apart from the fact that it is untrue, you mean?

this is PH; PCOJ / Perjury is something other people (i.e. the lower orders or public sector scum) are charged with , not the powerfuly built 'net contributors' of PH

[Cat]

Eclassy said:

Unless the police were in pursuit/witnessed her leave the pub but lost her, they have no right of entry.

Wrong.

Eclassy said:

If they then forced their way in (they wouldn't) or as in this case someone else let them in, then its always best to remain silent until you have a solicitor/you have had a chance to get yourself together.

Wrong again. If you've been required to provide a specimen of breath you can't refuse pending the arrival of a solicitor. Similarly if required under s172 you can't decline to answer pending legal advice.

Eclassy said:

Why was she kept in a cell for 3 nights though? Cant people be charged at the weekend?

Presumably because she blew over 3 times the limit and the Lord Adovacate's guidelines state that in such cases they should be kept in custody to appear at court the next lawful day.

Cat

[Shuvi McTupya]

Eclassy said:

Why was she kept in a cell for 3 nights though? Cant people be charged at the weekend?

Not sure why they do it, but it is quite normal for that to happen up here..

[anonymous-user]

Shuvi McTupya said:

Mk3Spitfire said:

She hasn't been to Jail! She was remanded in a police cell. Different things altogether!
And a couple of days b&b with an en-suite and a few quid down the drain might not seem like learning a lesson had someone been killed as a result of her actions.

But, nobody did die, or get hurt so that is not relevant to her case.

Maybe she should be allowed to carry on then eh until someone dies would that make it more relevant/fairer for your mate?

Took a chance and lost like the driver below?

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-30553947

[Mk3Spitfire]

Shuvi McTupya said:

Not sure why they do it, but it is quite normal for that to happen up here..

If she was still way over on the Saturday morning (courts sit on Sat mornings) the next available court would have been the Monday morning.


Oh...and ignore everything Eclassy posts.