Retrospective drink driving - not right surely?
Discussion
Some time ago a friend of mine went to look at a house and had a glass of wine with the landlady.
In return to his house share he had an altercation with someone else in the house.
Post altercation he drank a bottle of wine.
Police were called by the person my friend had he altercation with, somehow he got breathalysed / tested and they’ve deduced that he must have driven drunk.
He’s adamant that he didn’t.
But ts his word against the police and the technology. One or both of which seems flawed.
He’s looking at an 18 month driving ban according to a solicitor. But surely a decent solicitor would pick this to pieces, wouldn’t they?
In return to his house share he had an altercation with someone else in the house.
Post altercation he drank a bottle of wine.
Police were called by the person my friend had he altercation with, somehow he got breathalysed / tested and they’ve deduced that he must have driven drunk.
He’s adamant that he didn’t.
But ts his word against the police and the technology. One or both of which seems flawed.
He’s looking at an 18 month driving ban according to a solicitor. But surely a decent solicitor would pick this to pieces, wouldn’t they?
Firstly, OP, you don't know the full story. You know that, at least.
Secondly, if it went down exactly as you've written it above, it'll be very difficult to get a conviction based on sketchy evidence and "backdating" the blood alcohol levels as measured.
There are so many variables, I'm surprised he was even charged (How soon after the "altercation" did he drink a whole bottle of wine? How much time elapsed between that and the breathalyser? Does he have a receipt for the wine - was it bought on the way home, for instance?)
Secondly, if it went down exactly as you've written it above, it'll be very difficult to get a conviction based on sketchy evidence and "backdating" the blood alcohol levels as measured.
There are so many variables, I'm surprised he was even charged (How soon after the "altercation" did he drink a whole bottle of wine? How much time elapsed between that and the breathalyser? Does he have a receipt for the wine - was it bought on the way home, for instance?)
Hackney said:
He’s looking at an 18 month driving ban according to a solicitor. But surely a decent solicitor would pick this to pieces, wouldn’t they?
Exactly as pothole said... If he has explained the situation from the outset and the police haven't taken a blood sample it won't get far but does still need a switched on solicitor that specialises in road traffic. If they have taken a blood sample I believe you have to pay for the back tracking of a blood sample yourself which if what friend is saying is true is worth paying for, that said if he's telling porkies it may well end up worse for him.Hackney said:
Some time ago a friend of mine went to look at a house and had a glass of wine with the landlady.
In return to his house share he had an altercation with someone else in the house.
Post altercation he drank a bottle of wine.
Police were called by the person my friend had he altercation with, somehow he got breathalysed / tested and they’ve deduced that he must have driven drunk.
He’s adamant that he didn’t.
But ts his word against the police and the technology. One or both of which seems flawed.
He’s looking at an 18 month driving ban according to a solicitor. But surely a decent solicitor would pick this to pieces, wouldn’t they?
It seems like parts of the story is missing. In return to his house share he had an altercation with someone else in the house.
Post altercation he drank a bottle of wine.
Police were called by the person my friend had he altercation with, somehow he got breathalysed / tested and they’ve deduced that he must have driven drunk.
He’s adamant that he didn’t.
But ts his word against the police and the technology. One or both of which seems flawed.
He’s looking at an 18 month driving ban according to a solicitor. But surely a decent solicitor would pick this to pieces, wouldn’t they?
Back calculating from a later result to infer drink driving and getting a conviction is far from uncommon, though obviously a roadside stop and subsequent tests is more common.
Its not really a 'hip flask defence' as that is someone in a roadside event, usually after an accident so police not onsight immediately, having a 'nip' between driving and being breathalysed.
He and his solicitor would need to cast reasonable doubt on the case, if he told the police he had drunk a bottle of wine post driving (not really 'normal' behavior, though to some extent that would depend on the time I guess) they should then look for evidence such as the bottle, glass and cork/lid. If he mentioned it and they didn't look it helps his case, if he mentioned it and they could find no evidence then clearly that harms his defense, if he only came up with the fact much later then frankly he's screwed.
Its not really a 'hip flask defence' as that is someone in a roadside event, usually after an accident so police not onsight immediately, having a 'nip' between driving and being breathalysed.
He and his solicitor would need to cast reasonable doubt on the case, if he told the police he had drunk a bottle of wine post driving (not really 'normal' behavior, though to some extent that would depend on the time I guess) they should then look for evidence such as the bottle, glass and cork/lid. If he mentioned it and they didn't look it helps his case, if he mentioned it and they could find no evidence then clearly that harms his defense, if he only came up with the fact much later then frankly he's screwed.
The Rookie said:
if he told the police he had drunk a bottle of wine post driving (not really 'normal' behavior, though to some extent that would depend on the time I guess)
I sincerely hope I don't get you as a juror if I'm ever tried for anything serious. Your idea of "normal" and the behaviour of a great many people in this country are clearly at considerable odds. In terms of alcohol units, a bottle of wine is only akin to, say, 3 pints of decent cider.If the story was "man gets into an argument, is upset, drives home, goes to pub on the corner, drinks 3 pints of cider" then I doubt that that would sound especially odd? So what is it about the wine that you find so abnormal?
skwdenyer said:
I sincerely hope I don't get you as a juror if I'm ever tried for anything serious. Your idea of "normal" and the behaviour of a great many people in this country are clearly at considerable odds. In terms of alcohol units, a bottle of wine is only akin to, say, 3 pints of decent cider.
If the story was "man gets into an argument, is upset, drives home, goes to pub on the corner, drinks 3 pints of cider" then I doubt that that would sound especially odd? So what is it about the wine that you find so abnormal?
A bottle of wine is about 14 units, about the same as five pints of cider. Not very drink aware are you!If the story was "man gets into an argument, is upset, drives home, goes to pub on the corner, drinks 3 pints of cider" then I doubt that that would sound especially odd? So what is it about the wine that you find so abnormal?
No that is not a normal evening consumption, unless you are an alcoholic I’d expect an explanation as to why you consumed that much. Again though I did mention the missing timescale, was it an hour or 6 hours.....
Sounds like bullst. Your friend obviously has a drink problem as I imagine this all happened in a few hours, and it ain't normal to drink over a bottle in that time. Also sounds like they have anger issues. As a friend you should cut through the bullst and get to the real story and support him.
The Rookie said:
Back calculating from a later result to infer drink driving and getting a conviction is far from uncommon, though obviously a roadside stop and subsequent tests is more common.
Its not really a 'hip flask defence' as that is someone in a roadside event, usually after an accident so police not onsight immediately, having a 'nip' between driving and being breathalysed.
He and his solicitor would need to cast reasonable doubt on the case, if he told the police he had drunk a bottle of wine post driving (not really 'normal' behavior, though to some extent that would depend on the time I guess) they should then look for evidence such as the bottle, glass and cork/lid. If he mentioned it and they didn't look it helps his case, if he mentioned it and they could find no evidence then clearly that harms his defence, if he only came up with the fact much later then frankly he's screwed.
Wrong. Legal burden on the defendant. Its not really a 'hip flask defence' as that is someone in a roadside event, usually after an accident so police not onsight immediately, having a 'nip' between driving and being breathalysed.
He and his solicitor would need to cast reasonable doubt on the case, if he told the police he had drunk a bottle of wine post driving (not really 'normal' behavior, though to some extent that would depend on the time I guess) they should then look for evidence such as the bottle, glass and cork/lid. If he mentioned it and they didn't look it helps his case, if he mentioned it and they could find no evidence then clearly that harms his defence, if he only came up with the fact much later then frankly he's screwed.
The Rookie said:
A bottle of wine is about 14 units, about the same as five pints of cider. Not very drink aware are you!
No that is not a normal evening consumption, unless you are an alcoholic I’d expect an explanation as to why you consumed that much. Again though I did mention the missing timescale, was it an hour or 6 hours.....
Hang on a sec with the drink aware comments....... 14 units is a big exaggeration. That is the figure for fortified wines like port or sherry at 19% abv. No that is not a normal evening consumption, unless you are an alcoholic I’d expect an explanation as to why you consumed that much. Again though I did mention the missing timescale, was it an hour or 6 hours.....
I think most would agree the ABV of an average bottle of wine these days is around 12%; therefore a litre of it contains 12 units of alcohol. A standard bottle of wine contains 0.75L so the number of units in a standard bottle of wine is three quarters of 12units i.e 9 not 14. Do you agree?
BTW 9 units still equates 4 bottles of Bulmers. ( 500ml bottles at 4.5% abv)
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff