i thought you'd get an instant ban for this.......

[cortinaman]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/4603967.stm


i thought that if you refused to give a specimen when requested that you were prosessed and,when it went to court you were given a ban anyway for not supplying.

...also specific witness's wouldnt have been needed surely,just either one of the cops who nicked him (there must have been more than one cop there when he was nicked) or the desk sargeant who was on duty at whichever nick he was taken to when arrested (prob slough....his own nick,which is prob enough of a reason i suppose).

could anyone help me understand how he got away with this??

>> Edited by cortinaman on Friday 3rd June 02:54

[8Pack]

MMmmh! Yes! First 3 words!

[streaky]

8Pack said:

MMmmh! Yes! First 3 words!

How can a grammatical error by the BBC get you off? I wonder whether such a device was used the first time - Streaky

[Dwight VanDriver]

Not being privvy to the case file but seems:

Officer that requested the breath test would be required to prove circumstances giving authority to ask for sample and that he was in uniform etc.

Having been charged with the offence defendant appears at Court. Prime witness re breath test does not attend leaving CPS with a problem as they cannot proceed. Either the defence have asked the Mags to throw out charge as no witness and they agreed or CPS have asked for an adjournment and been denied by Mags.

Or, evidence on the drink charge totally sus and not likely to stand up so CPS withdrew.

Penile erectus by the sound of it.

DVD

[Selmer]

Was it a breath test to determine if he was pissed at the time of the incident (door kicking etc) or a breath sample during driving?
It doesn't actually mention anything about cars in the article does it?

[JMGS4]

Suspicion also of "old friend" being assisted by colleague??? Cynical? Moi??