Cleared of Drink Driving

[Saleen836]

26 year old mother of 4 cleared of DD!
Surely with modern technology it would have been very easy to work out if she was drunk at time of the accident?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10079461/...

(Did think this story might belong in the council thread )

[av185]

Of more interest would be how much plastic not how much alchohol she has in her body.

She clearly rents a house as there is absolutely no mention how much her house is worth in the D Fail article.

[Tankrizzo]

I thought I remembered reading from the BiB on here that there were all sorts of reasons why that defence wouldn't work.

[AJL308]

She's clearly a HUGE chav, as is her "mate" (how long before they have a falling-out and the mate comes out with a story that she lied, I wonder?).

Having said that, I see where the Mags are coming from. Where is the evidence that she was over the limit when she was driving? There wasn't any presented.

[djohnson]

Saleen836 said:

26 year old mother of 4 cleared of DD!
Surely with modern technology it would have been very easy to work out if she was drunk at time of the accident?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10079461/...

(Did think this story might belong in the council thread )

If, post driving, she had access to a sufficient quantity of alcohol to result in that breath test reading, then I’m not sure how you could disprove her assertion that she was sober when driving and the breath test outcome was a result of alcohol consumed subsequently. If you could establish a limit on how much alcohol she had access too post driving then that might be different.

[Dromedary66]

djohnson said:

If, post driving, she had access to a sufficient quantity of alcohol to result in that breath test reading, then I’m not sure how you could disprove her assertion that she was sober when driving and the breath test outcome was a result of alcohol consumed subsequently. If you could establish a limit on how much alcohol she had access too post driving then that might be different.

My immediate thought was to head over to the perjurers mate's house and get her to show them the bottles / glasses used.

Too much effort though.

[voyds9]

Make-up supplied by Polyfilla

[djohnson]

Dromedary66 said:

djohnson said:

If, post driving, she had access to a sufficient quantity of alcohol to result in that breath test reading, then I’m not sure how you could disprove her assertion that she was sober when driving and the breath test outcome was a result of alcohol consumed subsequently. If you could establish a limit on how much alcohol she had access too post driving then that might be different.

My immediate thought was to head over to the perjurers mate's house and get her to show them the bottles / glasses used.

Too much effort though.

Agree. I’m no expert but I’d bet that was done and there was (possibly by chance) a sufficiently empty bottle of Vodka to support the (somewhat implausible) tale which these two have spun.

[ChocolateFrog]

She "slammed her car into a 306"

Proceeds to show a tiny dent in the wing.

Isn't leaving the scene of an accident an offence?

[av185]

No as she gave insurance details etc and no one was hurt.

Got to love the DF article saying the Peugeots chassis was bent lol.

[AJL308]

djohnson said:

Dromedary66 said:

djohnson said:

If, post driving, she had access to a sufficient quantity of alcohol to result in that breath test reading, then I’m not sure how you could disprove her assertion that she was sober when driving and the breath test outcome was a result of alcohol consumed subsequently. If you could establish a limit on how much alcohol she had access too post driving then that might be different.

My immediate thought was to head over to the perjurers mate's house and get her to show them the bottles / glasses used.

Too much effort though.

Agree. I’m no expert but I’d bet that was done and there was (possibly by chance) a sufficiently empty bottle of Vodka to support the (somewhat implausible) tale which these two have spun.

If I were to pull that st I'd have no problem in being able to produce several empty bottles of more than sufficiently strong alcohol to "prove" my story. I don't do the recycling that often!

[AJL308]

av185 said:

No as she gave insurance details etc and no one was hurt.

Got to love the DF article saying the Peugeots chassis was bent lol.

To be fair, they appear to be quoting the owner of said 306. Whom, also to be fair, does not give the impression of being a trained motor vehicle structural integrity specialist.

[Saleen836]

djohnson said:

Saleen836 said:

26 year old mother of 4 cleared of DD!
Surely with modern technology it would have been very easy to work out if she was drunk at time of the accident?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10079461/...

(Did think this story might belong in the council thread )

If, post driving, she had access to a sufficient quantity of alcohol to result in that breath test reading, then I’m not sure how you could disprove her assertion that she was sober when driving and the breath test outcome was a result of alcohol consumed subsequently. If you could establish a limit on how much alcohol she had access too post driving then that might be different.

I was going on the article details stating around an hour after the accident she blew 3 & half times the legal limit then a further test she blew just over double the legal limit, if she had indeed drank a couple of pints of vodka would it read that high that quick? and if the second test was an hour after the first the levels in her body would have been higher as the pints of vodka took effect

[Gareth79]

Presumably the "pints" of "nearly neat" vodka is such that even an optimistic back-calculation would not leave anything left over to have been in the system at the time of the crash?

I recall that it's the burden of defence to prove the "hip flash" defence - looks like a person swearing on oath that they gave a person the drink was sufficient proof on this occasion. As mentioned above, IF it's not true then they are vulnerable if there is a falling out and the other person wants to destroy them, even if risking prison themselves for perjury.

[Harry Rule]

Seems like a strange verdict on the face of it.

Car is driven in an erratic manner resulting in a collision.

Witness at the scene, who is described as clear and credible, describes the defendant as being intoxicated, slurring her words and unsteady on her feet.

Defendant later provides a breath/alcohol reading four times the legal limit, but claims in court, where she's described as confused, emotional and misleading, that she downed pints of neat vodka (as you do) after the event. This is backed up by a defence witness who is described as totally incredible.

I think the prosecution could have grounds for appeal. It seems the only reason she got off is because the witness didn't smell alcohol.

[AJL308]

Harry Rule said:

Seems like a strange verdict on the face of it.

Car is driven in an erratic manner resulting in a collision.

Witness at the scene, who is described as clear and credible, describes the defendant as being intoxicated, slurring her words and unsteady on her feet.

Defendant later provides a breath/alcohol reading four times the legal limit, but claims in court, where she's described as confused, emotional and misleading, that she downed pints of neat vodka (as you do) after the event. This is backed up by a defence witness who is described as totally incredible.

I think the prosecution could have grounds for appeal. It seems the only reason she got off is because the witness didn't smell alcohol.

No, she "got off" because there was not sufficient evidence to show that she was over the limit when driving. It really is that simple.

Personally, I don't believe her. I think her pics in the DM are "fk You, I beat it" pics and that she's a total chavvy waster, along with her mate. That's not criminal though. Sadly.

[jules_s]

AJL308 said:

No, she "got off" because there was not sufficient evidence to show that she was over the limit when driving. It really is that simple.

Personally, I don't believe her. I think her pics in the DM are "fk You, I beat it" pics and that she's a total chavvy waster, along with her mate. That's not criminal though. Sadly.

The DM must have the timeline incorrect then. 120mg one hour after is a slam dunk

[irc]

Did the prosecution produce an expert witness to do the calculations and demonstrate them to the court?

[Harry Rule]

AJL308 said:

Harry Rule said:

Seems like a strange verdict on the face of it.

Car is driven in an erratic manner resulting in a collision.

Witness at the scene, who is described as clear and credible, describes the defendant as being intoxicated, slurring her words and unsteady on her feet.

Defendant later provides a breath/alcohol reading four times the legal limit, but claims in court, where she's described as confused, emotional and misleading, that she downed pints of neat vodka (as you do) after the event. This is backed up by a defence witness who is described as totally incredible.

I think the prosecution could have grounds for appeal. It seems the only reason she got off is because the witness didn't smell alcohol.

No, she "got off" because there was not sufficient evidence to show that she was over the limit when driving. It really is that simple.

Personally, I don't believe her. I think her pics in the DM are "fk You, I beat it" pics and that she's a total chavvy waster, along with her mate. That's not criminal though. Sadly.

There is evidence, there's a breath alcohol reading four times above the limit and a "clear and credible" witness at the scene, who's given evidence on oath that the defendant was intoxicated, slurring her words and unsteady on her feet, which would be consistent with the breath test reading.

It's up to the defendant to prove that she consumed the alcohol after the event and when her evidence to the court is described as confused and misleading, and that of her friend supporting her story is described as completely incredible, I can't see how she's achieved that.

The judge appears to have accepted the evidence of two people she has more or less described as liars to bring a not guilty verdict.

[GT03ROB]

Harry Rule said:

There is evidence, there's a breath alcohol reading four times above the limit and a "clear and credible" witness at the scene, who's given evidence on oath that the defendant was intoxicated, slurring her words and unsteady on her feet, which would be consistent with the breath test reading.

It's up to the defendant to prove that she consumed the alcohol after the event and when her evidence to the court is described as confused and misleading, and that of her friend supporting her story is described as completely incredible, I can't see how she's achieved that.

The judge appears to have accepted the evidence of two people she has more or less described as liars to bring a not guilty verdict.

I'm sure she was guilty, but there seems on the face of it an absence of hard evidence to convict.

The clear & credible witness stated he couldn't smell alcohol on her, he is not qualified to state she was intoxicated, & decent lawyer could easily make a case that the other signs were factors driven by shock at the crash.

If a back calculation was done then clearly there was sufficient doubt cast by the claim of drinking vodka to render it not definitive. If no back calculation was done, then it's quite right she wasn't convicted.