BBWF - not coming / DRINK
Discussion
Gentlement -
It doesn't look as if I will be coming to the BBWF again this year. I shall miss being there.
I have lost my licence due to driving with excess alcohol. I just thought I would mention this as there has been mention of alcohol elsewhere on the forum.
I do not write this to lecture you, but beware your drinking and then driving later.
The law does not say that you may NOT drink and then drive. The law says you may not drive with more than so much alcohol in a specified amount of breath. However there is a recent precedent that basically allows for you to be done for excess alcohol if the machine registers an over-reading even if you have had only one small drink. This relates to the mouth alcohol argument where conditions and circumstances bring this argument to the fore.
Many of us are or have been enthusiastic about drinking at parties until the early hours on top of lots of delicious burgers, curries etc., and then driving again only a few hours later after some sleep. I would urge you to seriously reconsider your position on this. Most of us have been guilty of this at some time or other, and I will certainly not plead innocence.
As I say, I do not say this to lecture anyone. I just know how enthusiastic we all are about driving our marvellous cars, and what a loss it would be if we are prevented from doing so.
Suffice to say the application of drink drive legislation has been tightened such by this precedent so as to suggest that as you MAY be over the limit after one small drink then the law is trying to say to you - "Do NOT drink and drive at all".
Cheers! And mine's a pint of Abbott!
JJ
It doesn't look as if I will be coming to the BBWF again this year. I shall miss being there.
I have lost my licence due to driving with excess alcohol. I just thought I would mention this as there has been mention of alcohol elsewhere on the forum.
I do not write this to lecture you, but beware your drinking and then driving later.
The law does not say that you may NOT drink and then drive. The law says you may not drive with more than so much alcohol in a specified amount of breath. However there is a recent precedent that basically allows for you to be done for excess alcohol if the machine registers an over-reading even if you have had only one small drink. This relates to the mouth alcohol argument where conditions and circumstances bring this argument to the fore.
Many of us are or have been enthusiastic about drinking at parties until the early hours on top of lots of delicious burgers, curries etc., and then driving again only a few hours later after some sleep. I would urge you to seriously reconsider your position on this. Most of us have been guilty of this at some time or other, and I will certainly not plead innocence.
As I say, I do not say this to lecture anyone. I just know how enthusiastic we all are about driving our marvellous cars, and what a loss it would be if we are prevented from doing so.
Suffice to say the application of drink drive legislation has been tightened such by this precedent so as to suggest that as you MAY be over the limit after one small drink then the law is trying to say to you - "Do NOT drink and drive at all".
Cheers! And mine's a pint of Abbott!
JJ
Sorry to hear you predicament, and that you can't come to BBWF (unless you ask the wife/GF to drive the wedge there.)
I know you say one small drink, but can you say exactly, what you had, and how long before you got stopped. Also had you been drinking the day before had still had some in your system from then.
As I somtimes just have 1 pint or a 1 bottle of bud, after work. I won't have more than that even tho the ppl I drink with do. so I normaly just have a few J2O's after. Esp as I'm a slim guy. and I know body weight can factor into these things, as well as many other things.
Did you contest it, and ask for the blood test, or a re-test and the station.
I don't agree with drink driving, but you should be allowed some, aka a glass of wine or a pint with a meal, also you need a bit of level for it to get out of your system from the next day.
I know you say one small drink, but can you say exactly, what you had, and how long before you got stopped. Also had you been drinking the day before had still had some in your system from then.
As I somtimes just have 1 pint or a 1 bottle of bud, after work. I won't have more than that even tho the ppl I drink with do. so I normaly just have a few J2O's after. Esp as I'm a slim guy. and I know body weight can factor into these things, as well as many other things.
Did you contest it, and ask for the blood test, or a re-test and the station.
I don't agree with drink driving, but you should be allowed some, aka a glass of wine or a pint with a meal, also you need a bit of level for it to get out of your system from the next day.
My own case does not relate to drinking and then driving the next day/morning.
I brought up the next day driving point as some people may wish to use the 'mouth alcohol' defence due to reflux oesophagitus - or just plain reflux indigestion. This avenue has been effectively closed by the recent judgement, and this defence was a particular plank in my own defence. The fact that I forgot to mention a procedural error that the whole case hung on and simply agreed to change my plea to guilty is a point of annoyance to me - but I'll just have to live with it. My counsel doens't think it would have affected matters anyway.
It is possible to drink and eat and sufer reflux indigestion. That is, some of the stomach contents are brought up into the mouth. After drinking copious amounts of alcohol and munching through loads of burgers and/or curry - it's quite possible to get indigestion the next morning - possibly reflux.
There have been several cases in the last two to three years where a defence has been put forward pleading that the Intoximeter reading could not be accepted as correct and was therefore not acceptable as evidence because the defendant was experiencing reflux at the time.
The most notable of these cases, the Woolfe case, was recently refused leave of appeal to a higher court and so this defence has effectively been closed.
Mr Woolfe had apparently had a pint of Fosters or similar at about 19:00 hours and no more alcohol until late in the evening, 23:30 or 00:00 hours, when he had ONE BOTTLE of Budweiser. He was breathalysed later (not long after I think)and was found to be over the limit. He pleaded he had been experiencing reflux and thus the Intoximeter reading was invalid. After subsequent appeals he has now been refused further appeals to a higher court. Therefore, this line of defence has now been closed.
What this means is, if, for example, you take a swig of brandy and then spit it out, and then you are breathalysed and found to be over the limit - the reading stands and you are guilty. The Intoximeter reading is final. The law is an ass in this case, but that is that. The Law is wrong, but The Law is the Law, and therefore The Law is right!
Effectively, without creating a new statute, the law now decrees you may not drink and drive at all - especially if you experience such a problem.
If you do not suffer from reflux, or do not experience it at the time of being breathalysed, then the law remains the same in being a limit of 35mcg of alcohol per 100ml of breath (I think that's it isn't it?). That is to say, it is not an offence to drink and drive but it is an offence to drive with excess alcohol. However, if the intoximeter shows an over reading for whatever reason, it would now seem that you have no defence.
The '..have you had a drink in the last 20 minutes?' remains in the questionnaire at the police station, along with a question about reflux which you must also sign against. The procedure remains that if you do have a problem with reflux or experience it at that time, then the breath test must be delayed - for 20 minutes I think - similarly if you have had a drink in the last 20 minutes.
Perhaps this may be of some help.
JJ
I brought up the next day driving point as some people may wish to use the 'mouth alcohol' defence due to reflux oesophagitus - or just plain reflux indigestion. This avenue has been effectively closed by the recent judgement, and this defence was a particular plank in my own defence. The fact that I forgot to mention a procedural error that the whole case hung on and simply agreed to change my plea to guilty is a point of annoyance to me - but I'll just have to live with it. My counsel doens't think it would have affected matters anyway.
It is possible to drink and eat and sufer reflux indigestion. That is, some of the stomach contents are brought up into the mouth. After drinking copious amounts of alcohol and munching through loads of burgers and/or curry - it's quite possible to get indigestion the next morning - possibly reflux.
There have been several cases in the last two to three years where a defence has been put forward pleading that the Intoximeter reading could not be accepted as correct and was therefore not acceptable as evidence because the defendant was experiencing reflux at the time.
The most notable of these cases, the Woolfe case, was recently refused leave of appeal to a higher court and so this defence has effectively been closed.
Mr Woolfe had apparently had a pint of Fosters or similar at about 19:00 hours and no more alcohol until late in the evening, 23:30 or 00:00 hours, when he had ONE BOTTLE of Budweiser. He was breathalysed later (not long after I think)and was found to be over the limit. He pleaded he had been experiencing reflux and thus the Intoximeter reading was invalid. After subsequent appeals he has now been refused further appeals to a higher court. Therefore, this line of defence has now been closed.
What this means is, if, for example, you take a swig of brandy and then spit it out, and then you are breathalysed and found to be over the limit - the reading stands and you are guilty. The Intoximeter reading is final. The law is an ass in this case, but that is that. The Law is wrong, but The Law is the Law, and therefore The Law is right!
Effectively, without creating a new statute, the law now decrees you may not drink and drive at all - especially if you experience such a problem.
If you do not suffer from reflux, or do not experience it at the time of being breathalysed, then the law remains the same in being a limit of 35mcg of alcohol per 100ml of breath (I think that's it isn't it?). That is to say, it is not an offence to drink and drive but it is an offence to drive with excess alcohol. However, if the intoximeter shows an over reading for whatever reason, it would now seem that you have no defence.
The '..have you had a drink in the last 20 minutes?' remains in the questionnaire at the police station, along with a question about reflux which you must also sign against. The procedure remains that if you do have a problem with reflux or experience it at that time, then the breath test must be delayed - for 20 minutes I think - similarly if you have had a drink in the last 20 minutes.
Perhaps this may be of some help.
JJ
Edited by firefox1712 on Friday 20th July 09:56
Gentlemen -
It is the Intoximeter test at the police station that finally determines whether or not you are charged and not the roadside test. The code of practice dictates that you must be asked that question and a question relating to reflux - worded along the lines of 'stomach contents coming into your mouth'.
It may be that they don't ask you at the roadside, I'm not too sure on that, but at the moment the police can only stop you and breathalyse you if they have reason to believe that you have been drinking alcohol.
I didn't put forward this thread to dicuss my own case, but to alert you all to the existence of a new legal precedent - should it be useful to you. I did not wish to try to justify my actions or how much I had had to drink in any way, so I shall not mention my own personal consumption of alcohol on that day.
JJ
It is the Intoximeter test at the police station that finally determines whether or not you are charged and not the roadside test. The code of practice dictates that you must be asked that question and a question relating to reflux - worded along the lines of 'stomach contents coming into your mouth'.
It may be that they don't ask you at the roadside, I'm not too sure on that, but at the moment the police can only stop you and breathalyse you if they have reason to believe that you have been drinking alcohol.
I didn't put forward this thread to dicuss my own case, but to alert you all to the existence of a new legal precedent - should it be useful to you. I did not wish to try to justify my actions or how much I had had to drink in any way, so I shall not mention my own personal consumption of alcohol on that day.
JJ
sorry for the cheap shot JJ firefox1712 said:
What this means is, if, for example, you take a swig of brandy and then spit it out, and then you are breathalysed and found to be over the limit - the reading stands and you are guilty. The Intoximeter reading is final. The law is an ass in this case, but that is that. The Law is wrong, but The Law is the Law, and therefore The Law is right!
Take care not to confuse the "breathalyser" with the "intoximeter". The "breathalyser" is the thing that you blow in to at the side of the road. It just gives an indication as to if you are over the the limit or not, giving the officer reasonable grounds to to suspect that you are over the mimit and thus arrest you on suspicion of the offence. The "intoximeter" is the big machine at the Police Station whith which you are required to supply two samples of breath for analysis.firefox1712 said:
Effectively, without creating a new statute, the law now decrees you may not drink and drive at all - especially if you experience such a problem.
Not really, if I have understood correctly what you state further down, the questions that you are asked at the Station already cover this.firefox1712 said:
The '..have you had a drink in the last 20 minutes?' remains in the questionnaire at the police station, along with a question about reflux which you must also sign against. The procedure remains that if you do have a problem with reflux or experience it at that time, then the breath test must be delayed - for 20 minutes I think - similarly if you have had a drink in the last 20 minutes.
So as I understand it the above discounts the "swig of brandy and spit it out" scenario that you put forward. If a driver has been asked about the reflux and if he has had a drink in the last 20 minutes, as far as I can see all the bases have been covered, he cannot then use the mouth alcohol defence.Thanks Dicky - that gave me a good laugh! I was expecting a jibe of some sorts.
The trouble was, I remembered soooooo much in incredible detail I think my solicitor was surprised. You may be interested to know that some of what I remembered did not coincide with what the police said in their submissions!
I hope you all enjoy yourseleves at BBWF and consume as much alcohol as you are happy to do so.
JJ
The trouble was, I remembered soooooo much in incredible detail I think my solicitor was surprised. You may be interested to know that some of what I remembered did not coincide with what the police said in their submissions!
I hope you all enjoy yourseleves at BBWF and consume as much alcohol as you are happy to do so.
JJ
Gassing Station | Wedges | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff