Discussion
I was thinking more along the lines of, say, there are two drivers insured on a car that were having a raucous night in, and they decided to go and get more booze, setting off several speed cameras along the way.
Based on something I read about in the local rag (although in that case they did get caught in the act). As for not understanding the caution, I believe that there is no requirement in this country for you to be able to understand the caution, there is only a requirement that it be given to you.
Based on something I read about in the local rag (although in that case they did get caught in the act). As for not understanding the caution, I believe that there is no requirement in this country for you to be able to understand the caution, there is only a requirement that it be given to you.
When arrested there is no requirement for you to understand the caution, only that it has been said, you could argue after arrest that you did not understand that you were under caution and any statements made to the police before interview could be inadmissable.
When you are interviewed your alcohol level has to be low enough to understand the caution and you are asked if you understand the caution on tape.
In your example you would end up going to the mags court stating yeah i was too pissed to recall who was driving as we were both hammered. Probably not a good idea as the fact you set off several cameras would potentially be unfit to drive through drink.
You could possibly open a can of worms.
When you are interviewed your alcohol level has to be low enough to understand the caution and you are asked if you understand the caution on tape.
In your example you would end up going to the mags court stating yeah i was too pissed to recall who was driving as we were both hammered. Probably not a good idea as the fact you set off several cameras would potentially be unfit to drive through drink.
You could possibly open a can of worms.
imbecile said:
I believe that there is no requirement in this country for you to be able to understand the caution, there is only a requirement that it be given to you.
The caution that I am referring to is the caution that failing to give a specimen is an offence (an obvious time when someone might be pissed). The obligation is to ensure the caution is understood, not that it was given. Case law is the chap who didn't speak English was acquitted as the caution was not understandable by him when he declined to give a specimen.
I think we are on about 2 differnt things,
Are we talking about fail to provide at the roadside where you are WARNED that failing or refusing to provide a specimin is an offence (that is not a caution) or the you do not have to say anything caution?
PS Language line is a life saver when the i dont understnad line comes into effect!
Are we talking about fail to provide at the roadside where you are WARNED that failing or refusing to provide a specimin is an offence (that is not a caution) or the you do not have to say anything caution?
PS Language line is a life saver when the i dont understnad line comes into effect!
^Slider^ said:
In your example you would end up going to the mags court stating yeah i was too pissed to recall who was driving as we were both hammered. Probably not a good idea as the fact you set off several cameras would potentially be unfit to drive through drink.
Wondering about that though, could they use your statement in court against you?
But you are making the statement in court. After S172 has been answered they may summons both persons to court and you would state that to the court. So technically you are using it in court as a defence so they could use it against you in future procedings i guess.
But i very much doubt that the mags would be overly sympathetic if that statement was made in court.
But i very much doubt that the mags would be overly sympathetic if that statement was made in court.
I was too drunk to remember if I was speeding m'lud.........
Not sure how that would go down? But didn't someone get away with, (or at least try try to), Drink Driving on the basis that they were in fact 'sleep driving' and therefore unaware that they were actually driving?
Edited by catso on Tuesday 24th October 13:26
Drunkeness as a rule is not an excuse for crime,except when it is involuntary - that is,contrived deliberately by other persons.
A person in a state of intoxication is prima facie liable for his acts, but he may plead his condition in mitigation of punishment. In a case where a particular intent is essential to make his conduct a crime, if he can prove that owing to his condition he had no such criminal intent, he may be acquitted.
If fraudulently made drunk by another an offender would not be accountable for his actions while under that influence.
Common Law - excuses for crime.
dvd
A person in a state of intoxication is prima facie liable for his acts, but he may plead his condition in mitigation of punishment. In a case where a particular intent is essential to make his conduct a crime, if he can prove that owing to his condition he had no such criminal intent, he may be acquitted.
If fraudulently made drunk by another an offender would not be accountable for his actions while under that influence.
Common Law - excuses for crime.
dvd
Sorry if I read this wrong but I don’t think anyone is answering the question being asked.
I think the question is if two people turned up in court and said it was one of us driving but due to intoxication through drink we are unable to remember who was driving when the alleged offence took place (ie a variation of the Hamilton with the variation that the lack of knowledge was down to alcohol).
I can’t see how they could convict either for the question of speeding as there is genuine doubt as to who was driving.
I can’t see how they could convict for DD as there is genuine doubt as to who was driving.
Is that the case?
I think the question is if two people turned up in court and said it was one of us driving but due to intoxication through drink we are unable to remember who was driving when the alleged offence took place (ie a variation of the Hamilton with the variation that the lack of knowledge was down to alcohol).
I can’t see how they could convict either for the question of speeding as there is genuine doubt as to who was driving.
I can’t see how they could convict for DD as there is genuine doubt as to who was driving.
Is that the case?
gopher said:
Sorry if I read this wrong but I don’t think anyone is answering the question being asked.
I think the question is if two people turned up in court and said it was one of us driving but due to intoxication through drink we are unable to remember who was driving when the alleged offence took place (ie a variation of the Hamilton with the variation that the lack of knowledge was down to alcohol).
I can’t see how they could convict either for the question of speeding as there is genuine doubt as to who was driving.
I can’t see how they could convict for DD as there is genuine doubt as to who was driving.
Is that the case?
I think the question is if two people turned up in court and said it was one of us driving but due to intoxication through drink we are unable to remember who was driving when the alleged offence took place (ie a variation of the Hamilton with the variation that the lack of knowledge was down to alcohol).
I can’t see how they could convict either for the question of speeding as there is genuine doubt as to who was driving.
I can’t see how they could convict for DD as there is genuine doubt as to who was driving.
Is that the case?
They can't be done for dd as there was no measurement of blood/breath alcohol,surely.
esselte said:
gopher said:
Sorry if I read this wrong but I don’t think anyone is answering the question being asked.
I think the question is if two people turned up in court and said it was one of us driving but due to intoxication through drink we are unable to remember who was driving when the alleged offence took place (ie a variation of the Hamilton with the variation that the lack of knowledge was down to alcohol).
I can’t see how they could convict either for the question of speeding as there is genuine doubt as to who was driving.
I can’t see how they could convict for DD as there is genuine doubt as to who was driving.
Is that the case?
I think the question is if two people turned up in court and said it was one of us driving but due to intoxication through drink we are unable to remember who was driving when the alleged offence took place (ie a variation of the Hamilton with the variation that the lack of knowledge was down to alcohol).
I can’t see how they could convict either for the question of speeding as there is genuine doubt as to who was driving.
I can’t see how they could convict for DD as there is genuine doubt as to who was driving.
Is that the case?
They can't be done for dd as there was no measurement of blood/breath alcohol,surely.
Driving whislt unfit does not require a measurement.
But i think thats a tangent.
S172 penalty could apply to both as neither party showed due diligence in identifying the driver, the fact they were hammered, drove whislt hammered will not help and will only serve to annoy the mags. Esp if you said yeah we were both pissed, got in the car and neither of us can remember driving.
gopher said:
Sorry if I read this wrong but I don’t think anyone is answering the question being asked.
I think the question is if two people turned up in court and said it was one of us driving but due to intoxication through drink we are unable to remember who was driving when the alleged offence took place (ie a variation of the Hamilton with the variation that the lack of knowledge was down to alcohol).
I can’t see how they could convict either for the question of speeding as there is genuine doubt as to who was driving.
I can’t see how they could convict for DD as there is genuine doubt as to who was driving.
Is that the case?
I think the question is if two people turned up in court and said it was one of us driving but due to intoxication through drink we are unable to remember who was driving when the alleged offence took place (ie a variation of the Hamilton with the variation that the lack of knowledge was down to alcohol).
I can’t see how they could convict either for the question of speeding as there is genuine doubt as to who was driving.
I can’t see how they could convict for DD as there is genuine doubt as to who was driving.
Is that the case?
That was the question, yes. Sorry if it was unclear.
^Slider^ said:
esselte said:
gopher said:
Sorry if I read this wrong but I don’t think anyone is answering the question being asked.
I think the question is if two people turned up in court and said it was one of us driving but due to intoxication through drink we are unable to remember who was driving when the alleged offence took place (ie a variation of the Hamilton with the variation that the lack of knowledge was down to alcohol).
I can’t see how they could convict either for the question of speeding as there is genuine doubt as to who was driving.
I can’t see how they could convict for DD as there is genuine doubt as to who was driving.
Is that the case?
I think the question is if two people turned up in court and said it was one of us driving but due to intoxication through drink we are unable to remember who was driving when the alleged offence took place (ie a variation of the Hamilton with the variation that the lack of knowledge was down to alcohol).
I can’t see how they could convict either for the question of speeding as there is genuine doubt as to who was driving.
I can’t see how they could convict for DD as there is genuine doubt as to who was driving.
Is that the case?
They can't be done for dd as there was no measurement of blood/breath alcohol,surely.
Driving whislt unfit does not require a measurement.
But i think thats a tangent.
S172 penalty could apply to both as neither party showed due diligence in identifying the driver, the fact they were hammered, drove whislt hammered will not help and will only serve to annoy the mags. Esp if you said yeah we were both pissed, got in the car and neither of us can remember driving.
But if they were both so intoxicated they couldn't remember anything from the date of the offence?
The question is "has the person used reasonable diligence in trying to identify the driver at the time"
I would say they fall very short as they were both too intoxicated to recall the event then they were too intoxicated to drive.
The reasonable person would not have driven in that state.
So technically both parties would be eligable for 3 points each under S172 failing to notify of the driver at the material time.
If you want to walk into a court and say, i was too pissed to remember and so was my mate, then good luck to you!
I would say they fall very short as they were both too intoxicated to recall the event then they were too intoxicated to drive.
The reasonable person would not have driven in that state.
So technically both parties would be eligable for 3 points each under S172 failing to notify of the driver at the material time.
If you want to walk into a court and say, i was too pissed to remember and so was my mate, then good luck to you!
I had a case where a man refused a station test saying he was drunk when the request was made and he was foreign and didn't understand the procedure. CPS charged driving whilst unfit. In the case mentioned I would charge both parties with driving whilst unfit alternative in charge. I expect by the time it came to court memories would have miraculously improved.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff