If you choose to enforce stupid laws..............
Discussion
Having a pint with my brother in law last week, he told me this story. I must point out, that this is alleged, as it's still sub judice.
He was on his way home from Bovey tracey in Devon, stuck in a long queue of traffic behind a tractor. The queue is travelling at no more than 20Mph, and has something like twenty cars in it. The car that is 2 cars in front of him is weaving VERY badly, from almost hitting the nearside wall/bank, to crossing the solid/broken white lines. Suspecting that any car driven that poorly, must be driven by someone who is drunk/drugged, he phones the old Bill. He gives them the index, and colour/make of the vehicle, and describes the circumstances. He intends to follow the vehicle for the police, to keep an eye on it for them. At this point, the operator asks "are you handsfree ?". Worried he is going to get a ticket, he responds "no, I've just pulled into a layby". The operator thanks him, and says someone will deal with it as soon as possible.
BiL rejoins the queue, and carries on his way. As he approaches Newton Abbot, he spots the alleged vehicle again, and starts to follow it from several cars back. The alleged vehicle proceeds through Newton Abbot, towards Totnes (in the process passing the local nick). BiL gets a phone call. This time it's the local nick (who could have almost shouted out of the window), they ask him if he can see who is driving the vehicle. He responds that he can't, as he's too far back, and he's had to stop to answer his mobile phone (still worried about being ticketed himself).
He carries on after the phone call, only to have lost the vehicle, so he turns around, and goes home.
Shortly after getting home, he gets another phone call from the police. They once again ask him "did you get to see the driver of this vehicle", he maintains that he didn't, as he was too far away.
Officer arrives at his house, and takes a statement later on. Obviously, he is not allowed to discuss the case, but he is able to disclose that a woman had been arrested at the registered keepers address, and allegedly found to be three and a half times over the legal drink drive limit.
The alleged driver, is adamant she had not driven.
It's going to crown court of course, where my brother in law will appear as a witness.
I wonder if he'll be "handsfree" on his way to court.........
And before anyone jumps up, and says he would have been exempt in these circumstances, why did the operator ask him then....twice?
Phil
He was on his way home from Bovey tracey in Devon, stuck in a long queue of traffic behind a tractor. The queue is travelling at no more than 20Mph, and has something like twenty cars in it. The car that is 2 cars in front of him is weaving VERY badly, from almost hitting the nearside wall/bank, to crossing the solid/broken white lines. Suspecting that any car driven that poorly, must be driven by someone who is drunk/drugged, he phones the old Bill. He gives them the index, and colour/make of the vehicle, and describes the circumstances. He intends to follow the vehicle for the police, to keep an eye on it for them. At this point, the operator asks "are you handsfree ?". Worried he is going to get a ticket, he responds "no, I've just pulled into a layby". The operator thanks him, and says someone will deal with it as soon as possible.
BiL rejoins the queue, and carries on his way. As he approaches Newton Abbot, he spots the alleged vehicle again, and starts to follow it from several cars back. The alleged vehicle proceeds through Newton Abbot, towards Totnes (in the process passing the local nick). BiL gets a phone call. This time it's the local nick (who could have almost shouted out of the window), they ask him if he can see who is driving the vehicle. He responds that he can't, as he's too far back, and he's had to stop to answer his mobile phone (still worried about being ticketed himself).
He carries on after the phone call, only to have lost the vehicle, so he turns around, and goes home.
Shortly after getting home, he gets another phone call from the police. They once again ask him "did you get to see the driver of this vehicle", he maintains that he didn't, as he was too far away.
Officer arrives at his house, and takes a statement later on. Obviously, he is not allowed to discuss the case, but he is able to disclose that a woman had been arrested at the registered keepers address, and allegedly found to be three and a half times over the legal drink drive limit.
The alleged driver, is adamant she had not driven.
It's going to crown court of course, where my brother in law will appear as a witness.
I wonder if he'll be "handsfree" on his way to court.........
And before anyone jumps up, and says he would have been exempt in these circumstances, why did the operator ask him then....twice?
Phil
I doubt he will be going to Crown Court for a simple drink driver! It is not an endictable offence.
Don't worry about why the operator asked if he was on hands free. It is immaterial and nobody could prove it anyway even if he had said yes. He would not have been proceeded against on just his own admission! Some what a lack of evidence
.
>> Edited by gone on Saturday 30th April 11:09
Don't worry about why the operator asked if he was on hands free. It is immaterial and nobody could prove it anyway even if he had said yes. He would not have been proceeded against on just his own admission! Some what a lack of evidence
. >> Edited by gone on Saturday 30th April 11:09
gone said:
Don't worry about why the operator asked if he was on hands free. It is immaterial and nobody could prove it anyway even if he had said yes. He would not have been proceeded against on just his own admission! Some what a lack of evidence
I'm with you on that gone. I'd have said "yes of course I am"
, then followed the car until it was stopped, or stopped outside the registered address, in which case I'd be able to ID the driver. Trouble is, he is just a normal law abiding MoP who feared he would be ticketed himself.
Phil
sadako said:
I thought you were legally allowed to use a handheld phone while driving ONLY when talking to toe emergency services...
From Dept of Transports FAQ:
"Q11. Are there any exemptions?
Yes. There is an exemption for calls to 999 (or 112) in genuine emergencies where it is unsafe or impractical to stop. There is also an exemption for the use of 2-way radios (see Q14 below)."
I suppose there might be an argument about what is a 'genuine emergency'.
This illustrates the fear that has been engendered in people that they, rather than the 'criminal' will be prosecuted (because it's easier). Reporting dangerous driving, defending your property, acting where the police can't be bothered or appear powerless, ... it does seem that the innocent party is more likely to be arrested, prosecuted, convicted and penalised that the offender.
This might not be the 'fault' of the BiB, but it is the BiB that continually lose the trust and confidence of Joe Public.
It would have been interesting to see what the operator would have said if the answer to the 'hands-free' question had been "Yes!" ... and what, if any, follow-up there might have been. I suspect that the operator would have cautioned the driver that using a non-hands-free 'phone was illegal. I would not be surprised if there was not then a knock on the door at some time (probably around 3am) with two officers ready to question the driver under caution.
This is the feeling that many people have about law enforcement in the UK today.
Streaky
This might not be the 'fault' of the BiB, but it is the BiB that continually lose the trust and confidence of Joe Public.
It would have been interesting to see what the operator would have said if the answer to the 'hands-free' question had been "Yes!" ... and what, if any, follow-up there might have been. I suspect that the operator would have cautioned the driver that using a non-hands-free 'phone was illegal. I would not be surprised if there was not then a knock on the door at some time (probably around 3am) with two officers ready to question the driver under caution.
This is the feeling that many people have about law enforcement in the UK today.
Streaky
Spot on streaky >>>>>>I doubt he will be going to Crown Court for a simple drink driver! It is not an endictable offence. <<<<<<<
If Crown Court is involved as stated looks as if on the evidence of all over the road they have tossed in a dangerous driving charge as well which can be heard on indictment.
DVD
If Crown Court is involved as stated looks as if on the evidence of all over the road they have tossed in a dangerous driving charge as well which can be heard on indictment.
DVD
She could easily have got off this charge by admitting to having drunk half a bottle of scoth as soon as she got home. She was sober when driving but her mind was elsewhere and she 'may' have lost concentration for a bit etc etc.
Without a police witness I would have thought a decent lawyer could have got her off, but she has denied driving at all, so she has blown it
Without a police witness I would have thought a decent lawyer could have got her off, but she has denied driving at all, so she has blown it
hedders said:
She could easily have got off this charge by admitting to having drunk half a bottle of scoth as soon as she got home. She was sober when driving but her mind was elsewhere and she 'may' have lost concentration for a bit etc etc.
Without a police witness I would have thought a decent lawyer could have got her off, but she has denied driving at all, so she has blown it
You are talking about post accident drinking defences!
It is well catered for in procedure.
It does not stop the police nicking you.
It will not stop you being charged with an alcohol related driving offence.
It is fairly easy to calculate what the level of blood alcohol would have been at the time of the incident!
A good lawyer might be able to throw some doubt on the prosecution evidence.
I have dealt with a few of these and no one I dealt with got off it
Post accident drinkers usually elaborate so much they just hang themselves with their own noose with a lot more rope!
hedders said:
I have dealt with a few of these and no one I dealt with got off it
Thats good to hear
Yep - someone we know of, 'piller of the local community' etc failed to get off using this defence, and he went to appeal with a (very) expensive QC etc. Still didn't get off.
The issue seemed to be that he didn't mention immediately that he'd had a drink after getting home. He (an older gentleman) claimed he was flustered and didn't think to mention it - the courts basically didn't believe him.
Not boasting here, but I have got away with this myself in my younger years, It was in the states though.
I left the car at home, went and got drunk and then decided it would be a great opportunity to show my 'new' RX7 to a mate that came home with me....next thing i know I am doing a donut outside my house in the rain
Naturally I over cooked it and hit my neighbours car , which cost me a grand
He called the police and they came about twenty minutes later and smelled my breath, and noticed my drunken swagger etc and didn't even question my story about hitting the bottle to calm my nerves after losing control etc. As soon as he was happy I was who I said I was he gave my details to my neighbour and buggered off!
I left the car at home, went and got drunk and then decided it would be a great opportunity to show my 'new' RX7 to a mate that came home with me....next thing i know I am doing a donut outside my house in the rain
Naturally I over cooked it and hit my neighbours car , which cost me a grand He called the police and they came about twenty minutes later and smelled my breath, and noticed my drunken swagger etc and didn't even question my story about hitting the bottle to calm my nerves after losing control etc. As soon as he was happy I was who I said I was he gave my details to my neighbour and buggered off!
An update for you.
Brother in law got a phone call the day before the case. The woman had changed her plea to guilty. Have no idea why (other than the fact she was obviously), unless she wanted to delay the loss of her license for whatever reason.
Result anyway
I'll let you know what she got, when I find out.
Phil
Brother in law got a phone call the day before the case. The woman had changed her plea to guilty. Have no idea why (other than the fact she was obviously), unless she wanted to delay the loss of her license for whatever reason.
Result anyway
I'll let you know what she got, when I find out.
Phil
That's all very interesting.
Does this mean that I can/should call 999 when I next see someone tailgating me at speed (oh yes, several times yesterday).
Or see someone littering out of their car?
Or...
What exactly are the guidelines for what will be acted upon? I see half a dozen driving incidents a day, mostly DWDCA but also dangerous, occasionally driving off and once an assault.
Does this mean that I can/should call 999 when I next see someone tailgating me at speed (oh yes, several times yesterday).
Or see someone littering out of their car?
Or...
What exactly are the guidelines for what will be acted upon? I see half a dozen driving incidents a day, mostly DWDCA but also dangerous, occasionally driving off and once an assault.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff