Retrospective drink driving - not right surely?
Discussion
Roger Irrelevant said:
Thesprucegoose said:
I'm pretty sure cat is a legal professional. I love it when the armchair experts argue with real ones...
As a legal professional I completely agree with you! I also like it when amateur Columbos reckon they've caught somebody out and try to construct an alternative version of events, e.g. 'the police don't go round to people's houses because of an argument'. Honestly, the police I know would tell you that some days that's pretty much all they do!Greendubber said:
Sorting out arguments between disfunctional morons takes up a lot of police time. Been to hundreds, if not thousands of them. 'he won't give me my fags' 'shes hidden the remote's etc.
Entirely understandable, though - both taking ciggies and hiding the remote should carry life sentences! 
aka_kerrly said:
Is the "warm engine" test really that scientific, can you really find yourself in court because of that & back calculating methods which aren't 100% accurate?
I've worked on a fair number of cars in my time an drank my share of alcohol to know I could be drunk enough in terms of being over the prescribed driving limit well within the period it takes for an engine to be classed as stone cold so it does seem possible to drink a bottle of wine an still have a warm car on the drive yet be perfectly innocent .
Back calculations are surprisingly accurate - if I can find it I'll post mine up. It runs to about ten pages, and takes into account your weight, build, height, drinking habits, what you had to eat that day, what (even non alcoholic) you had to drink that day, exactly what time you started and finished drinking (the "before" and the "after" drinks, and then gives a result.I've worked on a fair number of cars in my time an drank my share of alcohol to know I could be drunk enough in terms of being over the prescribed driving limit well within the period it takes for an engine to be classed as stone cold so it does seem possible to drink a bottle of wine an still have a warm car on the drive yet be perfectly innocent .
Including things like "It is possible that Guindilias would have had a breath alcohol reading of over 0.35 at 16:43pm, however this is unlikely and calculations show that less than 0.01% of the population would have this level of alcohol in their system, under the same conditions"
Gives you the formula they used to work out the back calculations as well - in my report he used three different methods of calculating it, and stated the best and worst case for each one.
Probably why they charge so bloody much - it cost me close to ten grand to win my case, but my job and not being disqualified to drive were worth more than that to me!
guindilias said:
Did you read the thread AT ALL?
There is no "reasonable doubt" in a hip flask defence, the defendant must prove himself innocent - unless he has firm evidence that he was under the limit when he was driving, he gets busted.
If the engine isnt enough, the landlady is solid evidence, as is any cctv of the car and driver on the journey home driving normally. There is no "reasonable doubt" in a hip flask defence, the defendant must prove himself innocent - unless he has firm evidence that he was under the limit when he was driving, he gets busted.
Edited by guindilias on Thursday 26th April 21:16
EazyDuz said:
If the engine isnt enough, the landlady is solid evidence, as is any cctv of the car and driver on the journey home driving normally.
The landlady could lie, either as a favour or for a few quid. My friend testified that I had only drunk two cans before I left, and from the time I left until the time I got to the shop and was reported for "smelling of alcohol" I passed several CCTV, ANPR cameras - and a police car. The judge was still going to convict until we found the receipt showing that only two cans of cider had been purchased.
His thinking (as he stated in court) was that I had taken "a great deal more alcohol" than I claimed before driving.
I have previously (correctly) been convicted of drink driving, and the only reason I was caught was that a shop assistant saw my glazed eyes and the STRONG smell of drink from me - I was over 3 times the limit, and could walk and drive in rush hour perfectly well.
Different people react to alcohol in different ways.
As for the engine being "warm" - for that to be used as evidence it would need a serious "back-calculation" of how fast the engine would cool down, and knowledge of the ambient temperature, wind, etc. at the time - basically a full thermal model.
A hip flask case is SERIOUSLY hard to win.
OP's friend could do with specialist advice. Perhaps direct access to a barrister. If only I could think of one who also gives free telephone consultations... 
If the police attend one matter and another matter comes to light, then that may be looked into.
cmaguire said:
More to the point, why would the prats (Police in this instance) even go there anyway? Their involvement is as regards an altercation, not what the guy may hypothetically have been doing prior to that.
Am I surprised though? Sadly, no.
The police detect and prevent crime. Am I surprised though? Sadly, no.
If the police attend one matter and another matter comes to light, then that may be looked into.
cmaguire said:
It would be nice if the 'stories' posted on here as OPs were always accurate, I find it as tiresome as you do when extra bits get subsequently drip-fed and entirely change the scenario. Those threads are a waste of everybody's time but, subject to some knowledge of a poster's previous input or no obvious indication of a complete farce, it is logical to take the OP at face value until such time as there is reason not to.
Otherwise this sub-forum might as well be shut down.
Taking it at face value is fine, but there's still a lot missing (not blaming the OP). What has he said to the police? What has he said in interview? Do they have any corroborative evidence / other witnesses? What has the report said that came back dealing with the 'back calculation'? Etc etc. The CPS apparently think there's a realistic prospect of conviction. Otherwise this sub-forum might as well be shut down.
EazyDuz said:
If the police didnt check and record the engine temp at time of arrest, thats grounds for reasonable doubt, and so OPs friend should be found innocent.
I'm not sure about that. Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 27th April 12:54
EazyDuz said:
Greendubber said:
No, really?
Yea and since the police didnt even check a good lawyer will show that it is grounds for reasonable doubt since theres no proof he even drove other than word of mouth from someone he fell out with. He said she said doesnt hold up in a court of law.EazyDuz said:
Greendubber said:
No, really?
Yea and since the police didnt even check a good lawyer will show that it is grounds for reasonable doubt since theres no proof he even drove other than word of mouth from someone he fell out with. He said she said doesnt hold up in a court of law.Neither the time frames, nor distances have been presented to see if engine heat could even be relevant.
The driving and driving time/s may not even be a disputed elements depending on what has been said in interview / the evidence gathered.
'Word of mouth from someone he fell out with' - how do you know there's a not a statement from that person?
EazyDuz said:
Yea and since the police didnt even check a good lawyer will show that it is grounds for reasonable doubt since theres no proof he even drove other than word of mouth from someone he fell out with. He said she said doesnt hold up in a court of law.
Jesus suffering f
ck, can you read at all? There is no "reasonable doubt", the second time I have told you - it is purely up to the defence to PROVE that he was not drunk while driving. The police don't have to prove a thing, except that he was drunk when breathalysed at the station - the entire burden of proof is on the alleged drink driver. The PPS will cut him to pieces, unless he can show definite proof regarding how much, and when, he drank alcoholWell obviously I can, as I was driving in front of a police car for some time, , and they turned off at a junction. I'd imagine if they saw any flaw in my driving they would have pulled me over. For 20 years I would regularly drink 10 pints and drive home with no problems, until the shop assistant called the police because my eyes were glazed and I stank of drink.
Like I said, different people react to alcohol in different ways. I've always been a heavy drinker, have a tolerance, and so maybe it doesn't hit me as hard as it might do to someone who has a couple of glasses a week.
Not a boast at all, just a medical fact.
Like I said, different people react to alcohol in different ways. I've always been a heavy drinker, have a tolerance, and so maybe it doesn't hit me as hard as it might do to someone who has a couple of glasses a week.
Not a boast at all, just a medical fact.
guindilias said:
Well obviously I can, as I was driving in front of a police car for some time, , and they turned off at a junction. I'd imagine if they saw any flaw in my driving they would have pulled me over. For 20 years I would regularly drink 10 pints and drive home with no problems, until the shop assistant called the police because my eyes were glazed and I stank of drink.
Like I said, different people react to alcohol in different ways. I've always been a heavy drinker, have a tolerance, and so maybe it doesn't hit me as hard as it might do to someone who has a couple of glasses a week.
Not a boast at all, just a medical fact.
Police see flaws all the time and don't act on them, normally because they're on the way to a sLike I said, different people react to alcohol in different ways. I've always been a heavy drinker, have a tolerance, and so maybe it doesn't hit me as hard as it might do to someone who has a couple of glasses a week.
Not a boast at all, just a medical fact.
t job that's been kicking around for days and days.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff