Errrr, whats going on here?
Discussion
There must be more to this than in the article but a drink driver seems to have found a nifty loophole....
https://metro.co.uk/2023/07/21/wirral-drunk-driver...
numtumfutunch said:
There must be more to this than in the article but a drink driver seems to have found a nifty loophole....
https://metro.co.uk/2023/07/21/wirral-drunk-driver...
She wasn't a drink driver she was accused of being drunk in charge of a vehicle.https://metro.co.uk/2023/07/21/wirral-drunk-driver...
SS2. said:
The court found there were special reasons not to disqualify - nothing especially unusual in that.
Agreed. https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/explanatory-m...
LosingGrip said:
I wonder if she'll still have time declare it to her insurance company...pleaded guilty but given an absolute discharge.
With an absolute discharge and no fine or endorsement it becomes spent immediately under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, so no need to declare it to insurers.Aretnap said:
LosingGrip said:
I wonder if she'll still have time declare it to her insurance company...pleaded guilty but given an absolute discharge.
With an absolute discharge and no fine or endorsement it becomes spent immediately under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, so no need to declare it to insurers.robemcdonald said:
If that’s true then why do you need to inform insurance companies for a further two years after spent endorsements are removed from your license?
They're not spent endorsements. Endorsements don't become spent - convictions do, and the amount of time it takes a conviction to become spent depends on the punishment. A conviction that comes with a driving licence endorsement becomes spent after 5 years, regardless of the amount of time the points remain active for totting purposes or the amount of time the endorsement remains on your licence.Similarly if you're sent to prison you still have to declare the conviction after you have been released from prison - the rehabilitation period is different to the length of the sentence.
*Unless you also get a prison sentence, in which case the conviction can take longer to become spent.
Given that the court believed her version of events, it seems a sensible outcome.
As an aside, I cannot believe she said " There's a male injured down there". A man, a lad, a bloke, someone, any of those , but not 'a male'. I know it's policespeak, but it sounds daft to attribute it to her.
As an aside, I cannot believe she said " There's a male injured down there". A man, a lad, a bloke, someone, any of those , but not 'a male'. I know it's policespeak, but it sounds daft to attribute it to her.
It seems the standard caution wording is pointless:
"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court"
However, this is only one case, and not at all typical ot seems.
The article didn't say how much over the evidential test she was, so I assume it was a small amount (not that that changes the pass/fail nature of the law of course).
"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court"
However, this is only one case, and not at all typical ot seems.
The article didn't say how much over the evidential test she was, so I assume it was a small amount (not that that changes the pass/fail nature of the law of course).
Ian Geary said:
It seems the standard caution wording is pointless:
"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court"
Not really. It says MAY, not WILL, after all."You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court"
Before the law was changed if she had come up with a whole new defence at court, the fact that she had said nothing about the mysterious friend during her interview would not have been disclosed to the magistrates (or jury in a Crown Court case) and the prosecution would not have been allowed to make any comment on it. Now they're allowed to ask: if she was trying to get an unwell friend to hospital, why didn't she mention this at her police interview? It's still for the magistrates to decide whether they believe her or not. The fact that she didn't tell the same story at interview, and whatever explanation she can offer for not doing so, are two of the many things they'll take into account when they decide whether they believe her.
Ultimately they heard all the evidence, watched her being cross-examined, and they did believe her. They may or may not have got it right... but they were probably in a better position to make that judgement than people like us who have only read a 100 word summary of the evidence on a local news website.
It does seem a bit odd that the poice recokoned there was no record of an ambulance being called - I wonder if there was an admission the check might not have been thorough?
And as for coming up with the story later, a local "pillar of the community etc", drove home late from a function one evening then some time later the poilce knocked on the door, breath tested him and he failed. He insisted he told the police he had a drink on returning home but the police said they didn't say that and they got convicted.
Went to appeal with a household name QC and still lost. I think he thought they could swear it was true and that'd be it.
And as for coming up with the story later, a local "pillar of the community etc", drove home late from a function one evening then some time later the poilce knocked on the door, breath tested him and he failed. He insisted he told the police he had a drink on returning home but the police said they didn't say that and they got convicted.
Went to appeal with a household name QC and still lost. I think he thought they could swear it was true and that'd be it.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff