Retrospective drink driving - not right surely?
Discussion
In my "hipflask defence", the cops neither asked nor demanded to see the empties - they were sitting there in the front room bin.
I found guidance from Oxfordshire police I think, saying that officers should ask to be allowed in, (a refusal obviously looks bad)and mark the level drunk on the bottle, and take it as evidence with the drinker's permission - and also mark roughly the level it was at before they cracked into it.
Doesn't apply really for a full bottle of wine, you tell them what wine it was and the back calc report tells them exactly how much wine was in the bottle, and how many millilitres of that would be ethanol.
The calc is seriously complicated, to the extent that I would say the OPs friend is buggered if he has lied about anything. It has to be done by a registered lab, and they have very few details about the circumstances except build, weight, height, drinking habits, time consumed and time tested, etc.
Nothing about altercations, or anything else.
I found guidance from Oxfordshire police I think, saying that officers should ask to be allowed in, (a refusal obviously looks bad)and mark the level drunk on the bottle, and take it as evidence with the drinker's permission - and also mark roughly the level it was at before they cracked into it.
Doesn't apply really for a full bottle of wine, you tell them what wine it was and the back calc report tells them exactly how much wine was in the bottle, and how many millilitres of that would be ethanol.
The calc is seriously complicated, to the extent that I would say the OPs friend is buggered if he has lied about anything. It has to be done by a registered lab, and they have very few details about the circumstances except build, weight, height, drinking habits, time consumed and time tested, etc.
Nothing about altercations, or anything else.
Here is an excerpt from mine -
" [b] If it is accepted that Mr Guindilias consumed 2 cans of Magners Cider (440ml each can, 4.5% ABV, between 14:00 and 15:30 on the (date) then a maximum theoretical evaluation in breath alcohol of some 24 micrograms/100ml is redicted for an individual of his weight and build.
This would not have been sufficient to render him in excess of the drink drive limit of 35 micrograms/100ml and would have been reduced to virtually zero at or before 16:00hrs on (date), although there is a possibility that some alcohol, well below the drink driving limit, persisted in his breath. [/b] "
And that goes on for 16 pages, using 3 different calculation methods.
The pivotal part is the beginning - "If it is accepted that" - I had the receipt so could prove it.
All in all, a ball-ache, and as I said it cost the guts of £10k (conviction by the magistrate, then repealed on appeal to the County Court) in Solicitor and Barrister fees, and repeated adjournments.
But my licence and my job are worth far in excess of that.
" [b] If it is accepted that Mr Guindilias consumed 2 cans of Magners Cider (440ml each can, 4.5% ABV, between 14:00 and 15:30 on the (date) then a maximum theoretical evaluation in breath alcohol of some 24 micrograms/100ml is redicted for an individual of his weight and build.
This would not have been sufficient to render him in excess of the drink drive limit of 35 micrograms/100ml and would have been reduced to virtually zero at or before 16:00hrs on (date), although there is a possibility that some alcohol, well below the drink driving limit, persisted in his breath. [/b] "
And that goes on for 16 pages, using 3 different calculation methods.
The pivotal part is the beginning - "If it is accepted that" - I had the receipt so could prove it.
All in all, a ball-ache, and as I said it cost the guts of £10k (conviction by the magistrate, then repealed on appeal to the County Court) in Solicitor and Barrister fees, and repeated adjournments.
But my licence and my job are worth far in excess of that.
Edited by guindilias on Thursday 10th May 18:51
Edited by guindilias on Thursday 10th May 18:54
I think this was the one I was thinking of - Hampshire Police.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=...
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=...
Hackney said:
Not intentional, I assure you.
I'm talking from experience I was done for DD 10 years ago. I was a high risk so did the course. there were people on the course, said they didn't have a drink problem, one said that a friend drugged him and dumped him in a car. Another drank 2 bottles a night, 20 units, or 21 hours to clear your system, drove the next day, all blamed others. Your mate sounds like one of them.guindilias said:
The first time I was banned, one of the girls on the course didn't really understand the maths. Maybe 26, gorgeous - perfect skin, perfect body, healthy set of jugs on her. Only drank vodka.
It turned out when the tutor added it up for her that she was drinking 160 units a week!
Well once the jugs are full to overflowing what did she expect.It turned out when the tutor added it up for her that she was drinking 160 units a week!
guindilias said:
The first time I was banned, one of the girls on the course didn't really understand the maths. Maybe 26, gorgeous - perfect skin, perfect body, healthy set of jugs on her. Only drank vodka.
It turned out when the tutor added it up for her that she was drinking 160 units a week!
I wish. The 160, the 160 not the girl. Although yes, the the girl as well. But at my age it's rather academic.It turned out when the tutor added it up for her that she was drinking 160 units a week!
I find the whole units thing interesting. There are definite alco's, there are some on the borderline (probably me), but there are also lots above the 21 a week but nowhere near alco level.
A bottle of wine is just 3 large glasses. far less than the white van builders 6 pints of wifebeater...
guindilias said:
The first time I was banned, one of the girls on the course didn't really understand the maths. Maybe 26, gorgeous - perfect skin, perfect body, healthy set of jugs on her. Only drank vodka.
It turned out when the tutor added it up for her that she was drinking 160 units a week!
Hmmm.....that's cracking on for a bottle a day. Apart from anything else, she'd be getting her daily calorie requirement just from the vodka.It turned out when the tutor added it up for her that she was drinking 160 units a week!
guindilias said:
Aye, I was wondering when she ever ate - didn't go for lunch or anything, but when we all went to the pub after the course each day, she was sinking vodka like a mad thing - the Russian bloke in our group was pretty surprised! Must have hollow legs / a huge tolerance...
It’s quite eye opening how some people can build up their tolerance to alcohol.I’ve got a mate who can sink 2-3 bottles of wine at lunchtime without any obvious signs of being tipsy. He does it so often that I’m sure he doesn’t feel tipsy either. Rather worrying!
Police sound like scumbags.
Zero evidence other than a dodgy 'witness' whom has an agenda saying he drove drunk, and in 2018 that is enough to have him convicted.
I dont like my neighbour, what if I call the police an hour or 2 after he gets home on a Friday night, saying he just got home, stumbled indoors and was obviously drunk.
Cue police turning up shortly after. Meanwhile the neighbour in the past hour and a bit has been getting a bit of whiskey down him to start off the weekend.
Zero evidence other than a dodgy 'witness' whom has an agenda saying he drove drunk, and in 2018 that is enough to have him convicted.
I dont like my neighbour, what if I call the police an hour or 2 after he gets home on a Friday night, saying he just got home, stumbled indoors and was obviously drunk.
Cue police turning up shortly after. Meanwhile the neighbour in the past hour and a bit has been getting a bit of whiskey down him to start off the weekend.
That's it - he NEEDS evidence that he isn't guilty. Pub CCTV, speed cameras, receipts for when he bought the drink, anything.
The judge I got in the Magistrate's court was a complete and utter c
t - hardly even looked at the evidence from either side, doled out a 4 year ban, £2500 fine, and a suspended sentence. I had been busted before.
I intended to appeal as I knew I wasn't guilty - and found the receipt in the pocket of the jacket I had been wearing that day.
Appeal judge was an even nastier little man, but my Barrister quietly put the case forward to him before the hearing and pointed out that the PPS case was now pretty weak - and he declared me innocent.
Weight off my shoulders? Weight of the world off my shoulders.
The judge I got in the Magistrate's court was a complete and utter c
t - hardly even looked at the evidence from either side, doled out a 4 year ban, £2500 fine, and a suspended sentence. I had been busted before.I intended to appeal as I knew I wasn't guilty - and found the receipt in the pocket of the jacket I had been wearing that day.
Appeal judge was an even nastier little man, but my Barrister quietly put the case forward to him before the hearing and pointed out that the PPS case was now pretty weak - and he declared me innocent.
Weight off my shoulders? Weight of the world off my shoulders.
guindilias said:
That's it - he NEEDS evidence that he isn't guilty. Pub CCTV, speed cameras, receipts for when he bought the drink, anything.
The judge I got in the Magistrate's court was a complete and utter ct - hardly even looked at the evidence from either side, doled out a 4 year ban, £2500 fine, and a suspended sentence. I had been busted before.
I intended to appeal as I knew I wasn't guilty - and found the receipt in the pocket of the jacket I had been wearing that day.
Appeal judge was an even nastier little man, but my Barrister quietly put the case forward to him before the hearing and pointed out that the PPS case was now pretty weak - and he declared me innocent.
Weight off my shoulders? Weight of the world off my shoulders.
What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Someone claiming something isnt proof. The judge I got in the Magistrate's court was a complete and utter c
t - hardly even looked at the evidence from either side, doled out a 4 year ban, £2500 fine, and a suspended sentence. I had been busted before.I intended to appeal as I knew I wasn't guilty - and found the receipt in the pocket of the jacket I had been wearing that day.
Appeal judge was an even nastier little man, but my Barrister quietly put the case forward to him before the hearing and pointed out that the PPS case was now pretty weak - and he declared me innocent.
Weight off my shoulders? Weight of the world off my shoulders.
mbcx4jrh said:
A bottle of wine is just 3 large glasses. far less than the white van builders 6 pints of wifebeater...
(not picking on you, except that this well illustrates a wider misperception
It's very nearly a total missapprehension and why understanding what a 'unit' is, matters. Glass size has f-all to do with it!
On a separate rant - the still-common idea that 'a glass of wine =1 unit' is predicated on 1 x 125ml glass of wine at 8%. You simply cannot find such things these days (- which is a different story.)
Anyway:
- A bottle of wine, say a a new world red, usu c.14% these days = 750ml*0.14 = 105ml of alcohol = 10.5units.
- Stella at 4.8%, 6pints: 6X 568ml = 3.4l, x 4.8% = 16.3 units.
A world away? Not at all. It's not the glass size, but the total intake vs your mass. IIRC - and it's a /rough/ approximation, not a guide - 3units puts a 13st bloke on or over the uk alc drive limit in an hour (after end of drinking). Both these examples need >>10hrs after the end of drinking for the body to clear, at best (1u /hr).
In terms of morning-after - neither good, so nothing to choose between them.
Edited by Huff on Friday 11th May 21:54
Unfortunately, drinking after driving is pretty much the only case I know of where "guilty until proven innocent" is the rule.
If you think about it, it makes sense - how would the police prove you guilty? That's the whole origin of it - gents out for a few drinks would bring a hip flask, and if they had a crash, would claim they had had a drink after the crash to settle the nerves.
How do the police prove that he didn't?
So it falls under an odd, but mostly sensible law. Some people get caught up in it wrongly and REALLY do themselves in - claiming they had huge amounts to drink afterwards, or "just a glass" or "just a bottle, in 3 minutes" - they don't understand until afterwards just how complicated and accurate a back-calculation can be - let alone the need for some kind of solid proof.
If you think about it, it makes sense - how would the police prove you guilty? That's the whole origin of it - gents out for a few drinks would bring a hip flask, and if they had a crash, would claim they had had a drink after the crash to settle the nerves.
How do the police prove that he didn't?
So it falls under an odd, but mostly sensible law. Some people get caught up in it wrongly and REALLY do themselves in - claiming they had huge amounts to drink afterwards, or "just a glass" or "just a bottle, in 3 minutes" - they don't understand until afterwards just how complicated and accurate a back-calculation can be - let alone the need for some kind of solid proof.
guindilias said:
That's it - he NEEDS evidence that he isn't guilty. .
In the UK, the prosecution needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a person is guilty of an alleged offence.They have a breathalyser test but that is not proof positive of an offence.
For one, they need to prove he has been driving within a period where that test may be evidence of a possible offence.
What proof do they have that he was driving within such a period? Have they CCTV or dashcam or a police officers direct observation? In the absence of that have they got credible witness statements to such a thing?
The accused person needs to start from that position, unless the police can prove such a thing beyond reasonable doubt then the question of when alcohol was consumed is moot.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff