6 Month Drink Driving Ban

[cologne2792]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4456422/drunk-drivin...


Sorry if this thread is already running elsewhere.

So a PA blows a reading of 75 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 mililitres of breath which is, according to drinkdrivinglaw.co.uk, an automatic 24 month ban.
She then gets a 6 month ban and a fine.
How is this possible ?
I thought ANY drink driving ban for exceeding the limit was an automatic 12 month ban ?
Has something changed ?

[Pica-Pica]

PA -- posh name for secretary, or something else?

[Dave.]

She wasn't done for DD, just drunk in charge of a vehicle.

Wonder what her mate got...?

[agtlaw]

cologne2792 said:

...according to 'the internet' an automatic 24 month ban.

It isn't, and the internet isn't a reliable source of law.

Drunk in charge = 10 points or a ban of any length.

Drink driving = unless special reasons apply, a ban of at least 12 months.

The defendant pleaded guilty to being drunk in charge.

[cologne2792]

agtlaw said:

cologne2792 said:

...according to 'the internet' an automatic 24 month ban.

It isn't, and the internet isn't a reliable source of law.

Drunk in charge = 10 points or a ban of any length.

Drink driving = unless special reasons apply, a ban of at least 12 months.

The defendant pleaded guilty to being drunk in charge.

Sadly the Op wasn't paying proper attention.

[Leptons]

PA = Personal Assistant.

6 months because not a drink driving charge, it's a being drunk in charge of a vehicle charge. Which is either harsh or lucky depending on which way you want to look at it.

[cologne2792]

Dave. said:

She wasn't done for DD, just drunk in charge of a vehicle.

Wonder what her mate got...?

You are correct and I clearly wasn't paying attention.

I take it then she was found to be in possession of the keys? Or did the Police have reason to believe she was driving but were unable to prove it?

[MDL111]

Nobody else thinking go to bed next to pic 2 and wake up next to pic 1 ..... Pistonheads must be getting more politically correct

[cologne2792]

MDL111 said:

Nobody else thinking go to bed next to pic 2 and wake up next to pic 1 ..... Pistonheads must be getting more politically correct

It was from The Sun, sorry. I just couldn't bear the sanctimonious drivel from the Daily Mail.

[Leptons]

PA = Personal Assistant.

6 months because not a drink driving charge, it's a being drunk in charge of a vehicle charge. Which is either harsh or lucky depending on which way you want to look at it.

[Pica-Pica]

Leptons said:

PA = Personal Assistant.

6 months because not a drink driving charge, it's a being drunk in charge of a vehicle charge. Which is either harsh or lucky depending on which way you want to look at it.

Well, I never! I thought it was P*ss Artist

[Dogwatch]

MDL111 said:

Nobody else thinking go to bed next to pic 2 and wake up next to pic 1 ..... Pistonheads must be getting more politically correct

Mother-of-one so someone must have!

[Retroman]

article said:

Hall, from Sale, who had a previous conviction for driving without insurance told the hearing: “I already have a disciplinary for not being on time to work and that's just because of traffic in Manchester, so if I do get disqualified, I will lose my jobs.”

She sounds like a responsible person for sure....

Although the court has accepted she wasn't driving due to lack of evidence, it seems strange a friend driving would crash her car, then leave her and the scene. I assume as she was charged with being drunk and in charge that she also had the keys.

Edited by Retroman on Thursday 14th September 00:30

Edited by Retroman on Thursday 14th September 00:31

[mac96]

The friend must have been very convincing!

[BlueHave]

Probably because she's a woman and her lawyer read a long statement of drivel as to the impact not being able to drive will have on her children etc.

Drink driving is one of the most irresponsible things you can do apart from drug driving.

So many people think they can get away with it Wayne Rooney and the fit woman off Sky Sports.

[Andehh]

I am on the other side of a fence on this one.

I go out drinking with a mate, and he drives us home. He bins the car & runs off to get help/find somewhere with signal/lives round the corner and needs to get second vehicle to tow this one home/is a dick etc etc..

I hang around with said vehicle waiting for him, why should I get punished?

Is the difference here whether the keys are in the ignition? But if the car has substantial damage at the front & is effectively undrinkable?

[agtlaw]

BlueHave said:

Probably because she's a woman and her lawyer read a long statement of drivel as to the impact not being able to drive will have on her children etc.

Drink driving is one of the most irresponsible things you can do apart from drug driving.

So many people think they can get away with it Wayne Rooney and the fit woman off Sky Sports.

The report implies that 10 points were notionally endorsed, she had at least 3 points and then argued mitigating circumstances/exceptional hardship to avoid a ban of at least 6 months. The court didn't accept the argument and a 6 month ban was ordered.

[Cat]

Andehh said:

But if the car has substantial damage at the front & is effectively undrinkable?

The fact that a vehicle is damaged and undrivable doesn't preclude someone being drunk in charge. The RTA specifically states that courts may disregard any injury or damage when considering the likelihood of someone driving while still over the limit.

Cat

[VetteEd]

You would think that 12 points leads to an automatic ban; this is not the case. There are lots of people with many more points and still driving, the record I believe is 52 points and no ban. It all depends on the court on the day; "do you feel lucky punk"

[CYMR0]

Cat said:

Andehh said:

But if the car has substantial damage at the front & is effectively undrinkable?

The fact that a vehicle is damaged and undrivable doesn't preclude someone being drunk in charge. The RTA specifically states that courts may disregard any injury or damage when considering the likelihood of someone driving while still over the limit.

Cat

You're absolutely right but I'm surprised (must admit that I was sceptical).

I'm surprised that it effectively allows the court to exclude evidence that would otherwise amount to a complete defence, presumably to cover the scenario where the driver probably caused the damage and injury him or herself but there is a lack of evidence — but in an extreme circumstnace you could be prosecuted for having the keys to a burnt out vehicle.