Sussex Police Drink Driving Conviction Error
Discussion
I wonder how many other police forces are going to be in trouble
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/so
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/so
That's utter shite! If the nurse (or nursing assistant) has their phlebotomy certificate, they will be fully capable of collecting evidential blood samples without denaturing or corrupting them - probably more so than some poor rushed-off-their-feet doctor!
Some spotty, snot-nosed bastard of a Lawyer has spotted this wording and sprung the loophole. I hope that they are proud of themselves. I would love to meet them and show how proud I am of them with a lump of four-be-two...
Some spotty, snot-nosed bastard of a Lawyer has spotted this wording and sprung the loophole. I hope that they are proud of themselves. I would love to meet them and show how proud I am of them with a lump of four-be-two...
This intrigues me. Surely if a blood test is taken where the person who takes the blood is certified to do so, there should be no real question about the results, provided proper procedure was followed for blood storage.
The real fun with DUI starts with breathalysers, not blood. A properly taken and stored blood sample should be very hard to question, particularly where it is apparent during the arrest that it's a section 6 RTA contravention.
The real fun with DUI starts with breathalysers, not blood. A properly taken and stored blood sample should be very hard to question, particularly where it is apparent during the arrest that it's a section 6 RTA contravention.
Edited by kennyGti on Tuesday 4th July 00:22
MGBGT said:
That's utter shite! If the nurse (or nursing assistant) has their phlebotomy certificate, they will be fully capable of collecting evidential blood samples without denaturing or corrupting them - probably more so than some poor rushed-off-their-feet doctor!
Some spotty, snot-nosed bastard of a Lawyer has spotted this wording and sprung the loophole. I hope that they are proud of themselves. I would love to meet them and show how proud I am of them with a lump of four-be-two...
Some spotty, snot-nosed bastard of a Lawyer has spotted this wording and sprung the loophole. I hope that they are proud of themselves. I would love to meet them and show how proud I am of them with a lump of four-be-two...
My don't you have a nice way with words.
Perhaps you should consider how you would feel if you were on the receiving end of a charge as serious as drink driving and you felt you were innocent; and you knew the police had made procedural errors that would result in your conviction.
If you think about that it puts an entirely different light on the subject.
The procedure for drink driving detection in this country is seriously flawed as it is; there must be utterly no room for procedural errors in the prosecution services.
The article refers to this as simply being a "legal loophole" which they hope will be closed. Everyone talks about legal loopholes now. They are (probably) deliberately missing the point. The law was written like that for a reason. If the police are upholding the law then they have to follow it. This is a not an ACPO guideline that they're free to break on a whim with impunity; this is written into law.
As for saying they expect it to be closed, well they may be right because Labour will simply tack something onto an existing bill and it will go through. But they really need to consider why it was in there originally, and not change it simply for expediency.
And the idea of the police following the "spirit of the law" and not the letter.... We all follow the spirit of the law when we drive safety, observantly, appropriately, and over the speed limit. I don't recall any camera taking account of this. Yet a few years ago (pre-camera) perhaps more of us would have been more willing to accept their appeal to reason. Not any more. This is the price to be paid for the police extorting money under the guise of "the letter of the law". You've made your bed, now lie on it. Very sad.
As for saying they expect it to be closed, well they may be right because Labour will simply tack something onto an existing bill and it will go through. But they really need to consider why it was in there originally, and not change it simply for expediency.
And the idea of the police following the "spirit of the law" and not the letter.... We all follow the spirit of the law when we drive safety, observantly, appropriately, and over the speed limit. I don't recall any camera taking account of this. Yet a few years ago (pre-camera) perhaps more of us would have been more willing to accept their appeal to reason. Not any more. This is the price to be paid for the police extorting money under the guise of "the letter of the law". You've made your bed, now lie on it. Very sad.
this shows another example of the government not being able to write legislation
what do you call 10000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea ??
i live in a village where the only access is by car
so we get a lot of drink drivers especially in the summer
but if you phone the police to report one driving drunk they do nothing
report an accident they do nothing
go through a speed trap thats it for you me laddo
anything for an easy life
sussex police are shit
i have been cautioned for assualt by them when someone pulled a firearm on me thought i might have got away with self defence????
i have been questioned for being a cat burglar when anyone who knows me knows i am not little????
and the piaste to resistance after being asked to drive to the police station to get help for an off duty copper i was told to wait in reception as they are busy for half an hour. in this half an hour they searched my mums house, my mates mums house, then they managed to find us in the police station as one of them spotted the car in the police station car park!!!! they then proceed to threten me with accessorary to attempted murder, by some detective that looks like jabba da hutt, we were just out test driving a car after i had fixed it for a mate. they dont have a scooby doo clue.
if you are ever in chichester nick look on the wall for a poster by the sussex fire brigade 4 reasons to buy a smoke alarm, 4 children are there been saved by a smoke alarm. marvalous piece of smoke alarm promotion apart from one simple fact. it was an insurance job. their dad had the place burgled and the insurance company refused to pay out because he had a criminal record. plus the theives stole his van to remove their goods and towed it down the road. you cant make this shit up.
so plan B pit insurance in wiffies name, tourch the house claim insurance. but how do i know he did this. because a month before he swapped a fully working VCR for a broken one with a greater original retail value. and the police and fire brigade make them a poster.
you can't write stuff like this it has to be real it is that crazy
what do you call 10000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea ??
i live in a village where the only access is by car
so we get a lot of drink drivers especially in the summer
but if you phone the police to report one driving drunk they do nothing
report an accident they do nothing
go through a speed trap thats it for you me laddo
anything for an easy life
sussex police are shit
i have been cautioned for assualt by them when someone pulled a firearm on me thought i might have got away with self defence????
i have been questioned for being a cat burglar when anyone who knows me knows i am not little????
and the piaste to resistance after being asked to drive to the police station to get help for an off duty copper i was told to wait in reception as they are busy for half an hour. in this half an hour they searched my mums house, my mates mums house, then they managed to find us in the police station as one of them spotted the car in the police station car park!!!! they then proceed to threten me with accessorary to attempted murder, by some detective that looks like jabba da hutt, we were just out test driving a car after i had fixed it for a mate. they dont have a scooby doo clue.
if you are ever in chichester nick look on the wall for a poster by the sussex fire brigade 4 reasons to buy a smoke alarm, 4 children are there been saved by a smoke alarm. marvalous piece of smoke alarm promotion apart from one simple fact. it was an insurance job. their dad had the place burgled and the insurance company refused to pay out because he had a criminal record. plus the theives stole his van to remove their goods and towed it down the road. you cant make this shit up.
so plan B pit insurance in wiffies name, tourch the house claim insurance. but how do i know he did this. because a month before he swapped a fully working VCR for a broken one with a greater original retail value. and the police and fire brigade make them a poster.
you can't write stuff like this it has to be real it is that crazy
I think we would all agree that drink driving is unacceptable.
If the blood result still came back over the permitted amount, and provided the correct forensic procedures are adhered to then why should they be allowed to get off on a "technicality"?
Because at the end of the day they are drink driving and over the permitted amount.
If the blood result still came back over the permitted amount, and provided the correct forensic procedures are adhered to then why should they be allowed to get off on a "technicality"?
Because at the end of the day they are drink driving and over the permitted amount.
^Slider^ said:
I think we would all agree that drink driving is unacceptable.
If the blood result still came back over the permitted amount, and provided the correct forensic procedures are adhered to then why should they be allowed to get off on a "technicality"?
Because at the end of the day they are drink driving and over the permitted amount.
If the blood result still came back over the permitted amount, and provided the correct forensic procedures are adhered to then why should they be allowed to get off on a "technicality"?
Because at the end of the day they are drink driving and over the permitted amount.
I am in two minds about this one.
1. The crime don't matter - if the cops & cps don't do their job then the criminal isn't guilty...
2. Its DUI - its not a trivial offense like 90% of speeding is where the number on a dial is a bit too high for some abitary limit.
I have to say - for DUI - I hope this doesn't get loads of them off... although some will have had sufficient fright not to do it again. Most I suspect wouldn't
Sean
splatspeed said:
this shows another example of the government not being able to write legislation
what do you call 10000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea ??
what do you call 10000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea ??
Parliamentary draftsmen aren't necessarily lawyers. Believe me, if some of the financial/companies legislation had been looked over by some of the top law firms, a lot of confusion and resulting litigation would be avoided.
However, in this instance, as someone has already said, the legislation is drafted in a certain way to ensure that the police comply with set procedures. Natural justice states that justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done. If the police are allowed to make it up as they go along, then what chance some convictions will not be safe.
Most Bills have an adequate gestation period for members to raise points. I take it that nurses etc taking samples wasn't one of them or was not deemed desirable...
^Slider^ said:
I think we would all agree that drink driving is unacceptable.
If the blood result still came back over the permitted amount, and provided the correct forensic procedures are adhered to then why should they be allowed to get off on a "technicality"?
Because at the end of the day they are drink driving and over the permitted amount.
If the blood result still came back over the permitted amount, and provided the correct forensic procedures are adhered to then why should they be allowed to get off on a "technicality"?
Because at the end of the day they are drink driving and over the permitted amount.
The problem with this Slider is the term DRINK driving.
That does not imply, nor in law does not prove by any standards, that the driver is impaired at all; it does not prove, or even attempt to prove that they are DRUNK!
If samples are not correctly and professionally handled immediately after being taken they stand a substantial risk of being corrupted.
If the accused has any medical problems the test results will be corrupted, only a doctor is fully qualified to spot this.
Bearing in mind the severity of the penalties and the resultant implications, nothing short of the services of a police doctor adhering strictly to the regulations is acceptable.
NugentS said:
2. Its DUI - its not a trivial offense like 90% of speeding is where the number on a dial is a bit too high for some abitary limit.
I have to say - for DUI - I hope this doesn't get loads of them off... although some will have had sufficient fright not to do it again. Most I suspect wouldn't
I have to say - for DUI - I hope this doesn't get loads of them off... although some will have had sufficient fright not to do it again. Most I suspect wouldn't
I'm sorry, but if I am ever accused of drink driving, for whatever reason, I want the police and CPS to follow the law to the letter, and then some, this is the rest of my life at risk here! Any case where the accused might actually up in jail, should see the behaviour and conduct of the police and CPS as absolutely bloody impeccable, far more so than 'minor' offences such as speeding, not less.
I find it shocking that people would argue otherwise, in all honesty.
Edited by FastShow on Tuesday 4th July 21:13
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I know you're a copper. I work for an insurance company. If I got my knickers in a twist every time insurers were referred to as "robbing cnuts" on this forum I'd have some very twisted knickers.
I'm sure you're a very good copper, no sleight on you personally.
I did put a 'wink' smilie on there mate, so no knickers twisted here (I go commando). And you're right, I'm a very good copper....
FastShow said:
NugentS said:
2. Its DUI - its not a trivial offense like 90% of speeding is where the number on a dial is a bit too high for some abitary limit.
I have to say - for DUI - I hope this doesn't get loads of them off... although some will have had sufficient fright not to do it again. Most I suspect wouldn't
I have to say - for DUI - I hope this doesn't get loads of them off... although some will have had sufficient fright not to do it again. Most I suspect wouldn't
I'm sorry, but if I am ever accused of drink driving, for whatever reason, I want the police and CPS to follow the law to the letter, and then some, this is the rest of my life at risk here! Any case where the accused might actually up in jail, should see the behaviour and conduct of the police and CPS as absolutely bloody impeccable, far more so than 'minor' offences such as speeding, not less.
I find it shocking that people would argue otherwise, in all honesty.
Edited by FastShow on Tuesday 4th July 21:13
This is my current situation. I'm fighting a DUI (section 5, not 6!!!) as hard as I can. Got pulled while I was working (driving for 4.5 hours previously) and trafpol got a positive on me (no idea how). I know the breath reading is wrong, but I have very little chance of proving it. The witness statements (from polizei) are doubtful but they still have the edge. No blood, just breath and I get to lose my license for it.
Thanks UK government, turn an innocent law abiding citizen into a criminal, thats a good idea. If I lose my case I'll have lost any faith in justice.
ETA: I'll lose my job, and most jobs I was looking at I will be precluded from as a result of this. My circumstances have pushed me into much poorer jobs than I am capable of doing, but this screws me even further. Thanks GB.
Edited by kennyGti on Wednesday 5th July 13:23
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff