Lawyers who get people off Drink Drive charges
Discussion
Just reading in the Times this morning about a Lawyer (we all know who he is) who specialises in getting 'wealthy' motorists off speeding and drink drive related charges.
Personally im not too bothered about him getting people off the speeding charges but it just doesnt seem right and proper that a 'wealthy' person who is a drink driver is getting off on a technicality.
I know that the prosecution service are to blame in the majority of cases but there is the odd loophole which has nothing to do with the actual fact that the person was over the limit and drove.
To me, drink driving is the lowest of the low and in a different league to the offence of speeding.
Personally im not too bothered about him getting people off the speeding charges but it just doesnt seem right and proper that a 'wealthy' person who is a drink driver is getting off on a technicality.
I know that the prosecution service are to blame in the majority of cases but there is the odd loophole which has nothing to do with the actual fact that the person was over the limit and drove.
To me, drink driving is the lowest of the low and in a different league to the offence of speeding.
If this is a "wrong" situation, then who has committed the wrong?
- the lawyer who has promised to defend his clients to the best of his considerable ability?
- the motorist who is using his right to defend himself?
- Parliament for passing holey laws?
- the lenient magistrate who follows the law, not the natural justice of the situation?
- the CPS who have prosecuted unsuccessfully?
- the BiB who have brought an inadequate case to CPS?
I agree that the drink driver should be bought to book for his crime (and I think dangerous drivers are lower than drink drivers TBH) - however, if he can successfully get off, then I'm fine with that. That's the price of doing business in a just society.
On the bright side, he's likely to get caught doing it again, more successfully, or be scared into never doing it again. Is the fact that he's wealthy a problem for us, in this instance?
- the lawyer who has promised to defend his clients to the best of his considerable ability?
- the motorist who is using his right to defend himself?
- Parliament for passing holey laws?
- the lenient magistrate who follows the law, not the natural justice of the situation?
- the CPS who have prosecuted unsuccessfully?
- the BiB who have brought an inadequate case to CPS?
I agree that the drink driver should be bought to book for his crime (and I think dangerous drivers are lower than drink drivers TBH) - however, if he can successfully get off, then I'm fine with that. That's the price of doing business in a just society.
On the bright side, he's likely to get caught doing it again, more successfully, or be scared into never doing it again. Is the fact that he's wealthy a problem for us, in this instance?
Tonyrec said:
As an aside, a simple road traffic stop, roadside breath test and Police stn procedure is very straighforward............how the hell some idiot can get off this is beyond me.
However, get a switched on brief, throw enough mud etc and bobs your uncle, live to fight another day.
Tony, believe me, it can go the other way with a vengeance.
I will hopefully be finishing a post tonight about a PHr and his partner from London who was stopped up here and became the victim of the worst excesses of the system, particularly the Fiscal and his own, brutally expensive brief.
It will interest you I guarantee!!
IOLAIRE said:
As an aside, a simple road traffic stop, roadside breath test and Police stn procedure is very straighforward............how the hell some idiot can get off this is beyond me.
However, get a switched on brief, throw enough mud etc and bobs your uncle, live to fight another day.
Tony, believe me, it can go the other way with a vengeance.
I will hopefully be finishing a post tonight about a PHr and his partner from London who was stopped up here and became the victim of the worst excesses of the system, particularly the Fiscal and his own, brutally expensive brief.
It will interest you I guarantee!!
I lok forward to reading it later.
This is an issue raised by an adversarial judicial system.
The advocate you're alluding to is very good at what he does. Does that mean that we shouldn't allow him to practice because the CPS are not as good (note: many of the charges are overturned on a procedural or evidential basis)?
Remember, it's innocent until proven guilty and you are entitled to the best defence. (Whether you can afford the price of what is 'best' is something else)
The advocate you're alluding to is very good at what he does. Does that mean that we shouldn't allow him to practice because the CPS are not as good (note: many of the charges are overturned on a procedural or evidential basis)?
Remember, it's innocent until proven guilty and you are entitled to the best defence. (Whether you can afford the price of what is 'best' is something else)
If only your view could be reflected in the policies and practices within Govt, local authorities, Courts and the rest of the police ! 
J1mmyD said:
This is an issue raised by an adversarial judicial system.
The advocate you're alluding to is very good at what he does. Does that mean that we shouldn't allow him to practice because the CPS are not as good (note: many of the charges are overturned on a procedural or evidential basis)?
Remember, it's innocent until proven guilty and you are entitled to the best defence. (Whether you can afford the price of what is 'best' is something else)
Your quite right. This chap uses the ambush approach, its not 'defending' as such, just pointing out the flaws in the procedure.
The question is, given his ploys and tactics are well know, why dont the police and CPS make their cases watertight, then this chap would have no means by which to get a result for his client?
The legally qualified gent in question was at our local Magistrates' Court last week, but I don't know what for unfortunately.
If people are not being convicted becuase of procedural errors, then we (Police, CPS, whoever on the "prosecuting" side) need to get our act together and make sure the same mistakes don't get made twice.
If people are not being convicted becuase of procedural errors, then we (Police, CPS, whoever on the "prosecuting" side) need to get our act together and make sure the same mistakes don't get made twice.
Dibble said:
The legally qualified gent in question was at our local Magistrates' Court last week, but I don't know what for unfortunately.
If people are not being convicted becuase of procedural errors, then we (Police, CPS, whoever on the "prosecuting" side) need to get our act together and make sure the same mistakes don't get made twice.
Sometimes it seem as if your paperwork ist on trial with this bloke!
Dibble said:
The legally qualified gent in question was at our local Magistrates' Court last week, but I don't know what for unfortunately.
If people are not being convicted becuase of procedural errors, then we (Police, CPS, whoever on the "prosecuting" side) need to get our act together and make sure the same mistakes don't get made twice.
Exactly Dibs....but you know as well as i that that will never happen.
Tonyrec said:
If people are not being convicted becuase of procedural errors, then we (Police, CPS, whoever on the "prosecuting" side) need to get our act together and make sure the same mistakes don't get made twice.
Exactly Dibs....but you know as well as i that that will never happen.
We can but try; I'm certainly not going to perjure myself if I've made an error, and realise it in the middle of cross examination.
It's a great lerning tool really. I do know that when I have made mistakes, I don't make the same mistake again.
Tonyrec said:
The legally qualified gent in question was at our local Magistrates' Court last week, but I don't know what for unfortunately.
If people are not being convicted becuase of procedural errors, then we (Police, CPS, whoever on the "prosecuting" side) need to get our act together and make sure the same mistakes don't get made twice.
Exactly Dibs....but you know as well as i that that will never happen.
Whilst I too support Dibs comment the legal gentleman in question once got someone acquitted because one of the magistrates winked at someone in court.
I kid you not, one wink for whatever reason, apart from demonstrating he the magistrate was a muppet, and the case fell apart. I do believe the magistrate was also permanently removed from the bench by the LCD.
I forget which case it was but someone told me it was the second time that Mr X had got this particular person off on a DUI.
Maybe he should be featured in the current Horlicks advert. "How does he sleep at night?"
Try being on the receiving end of a Ford Mondeo on the wrong side of the road, doing 70 in a 30, on a blind bend, up a hill - being driven by a judge.
Needless to say he got of scott free and we were left to pick up the pieces that were our lives.
I would have a bit of a rant but the spineless git isn't worth it. Mind you - I'd love him to see how he has devestated a family.
So - if you were driving a Mondeo estate in Winterbourne Whitchurch on the 11th May 2003 - you're a spinless fu
er and I hope you lose sleep over what you did and that it'll haunt you for the rest of your life.
Needless to say he got of scott free and we were left to pick up the pieces that were our lives.
I would have a bit of a rant but the spineless git isn't worth it. Mind you - I'd love him to see how he has devestated a family.
So - if you were driving a Mondeo estate in Winterbourne Whitchurch on the 11th May 2003 - you're a spinless fu
er and I hope you lose sleep over what you did and that it'll haunt you for the rest of your life.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff