ChatterBank1 min ago
theoretical drink driving
After watching yesterdays 'Traffic Cops' on tv, i have a question of 'what would happen? , who would be prosecuted?' if this theoretical situation came up:
Police are called to a traffic accident on a motorway, only one car involved, (has hit the central reservation and flipped over), both occupants manage to get out of the vehicle and are unhurt (apart from a few scratches), They are husband and wife (both the same age and incedently the same birthdate), both are completely legless and are obviously over the limit, when asked neither of them can remember who was driving,(as their excuse is that they where drunk and it all happened too fast), both are insured.
whos the one who gets done for drink driving,
Police are called to a traffic accident on a motorway, only one car involved, (has hit the central reservation and flipped over), both occupants manage to get out of the vehicle and are unhurt (apart from a few scratches), They are husband and wife (both the same age and incedently the same birthdate), both are completely legless and are obviously over the limit, when asked neither of them can remember who was driving,(as their excuse is that they where drunk and it all happened too fast), both are insured.
whos the one who gets done for drink driving,
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by kujawski. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.Perhaps the police could arrest on suspicion them both under suspicion of committing a crime till one or both sobers up enough to be able to say who was driving. If they still insisted they couldn't remember, I think the police would "grill" them both thoroughly in separate interviews till one "cracked".
Sounds a good storyline for a TV cop drama, perhaps you have the makings of a scriptwriter!
Sounds a good storyline for a TV cop drama, perhaps you have the makings of a scriptwriter!
I caught the end of that program, there was an update at the end that the police were unable to press charges because they were unable to prove who was driving.
The forensics officer on the program looked a bit exasperated because as she said it's hard to prove forensically who was driving.
Fingerprints on a wheel don't mean anything, the passenger could have touched the wheel getting out or anything like that.
You can't preosecute them both for obstruction because one of them is lying and one telling the truth and you don't know who.
High risk stragegy because if they turn up a witness or some cctv footage you'd likely avoid a ban by virtue of going to gaol
The forensics officer on the program looked a bit exasperated because as she said it's hard to prove forensically who was driving.
Fingerprints on a wheel don't mean anything, the passenger could have touched the wheel getting out or anything like that.
You can't preosecute them both for obstruction because one of them is lying and one telling the truth and you don't know who.
High risk stragegy because if they turn up a witness or some cctv footage you'd likely avoid a ban by virtue of going to gaol
Good question.
having given it serious thought I would firstly let the court decide, not the police.
I would charge BOTH with driving whilst under the influence but also charge BOTH with aiding and abetting the offence.
Call me a legal genius, if you must.
Then BOTH can still be convicted with aiding and abetting the offence. They are not going to deny it are they? If they do, they can be convicted of the actual driving!!!! If they can;t remember (not quite a denial) they I would just go with the A+A.
Another interesting question would be Siamese twins. One is drunk, one isn't. Who was driving?
having given it serious thought I would firstly let the court decide, not the police.
I would charge BOTH with driving whilst under the influence but also charge BOTH with aiding and abetting the offence.
Call me a legal genius, if you must.
Then BOTH can still be convicted with aiding and abetting the offence. They are not going to deny it are they? If they do, they can be convicted of the actual driving!!!! If they can;t remember (not quite a denial) they I would just go with the A+A.
Another interesting question would be Siamese twins. One is drunk, one isn't. Who was driving?
A charge is not a matter of the facts. A charge is basically a summary of the evidence to meet a court case.
That is why I have said let the court decide.
People are very often arrested, charged and convicted of three different offences (usually in Public Order or assualts) but can happen with any crime.
That is why I have said let the court decide.
People are very often arrested, charged and convicted of three different offences (usually in Public Order or assualts) but can happen with any crime.
The CPS require that a case has a reasonable chance of succeding before they'll press charges.
Given that you have no evidence that one of these people was actually driving I'd say you had very little chance of success with a charge of Aiding and abetting.
After all in this case the non-driver is not lying to the police.
Imagine yourself in that position, you tell the police that the other person was driving, he lies and says it was you. What can you do? you can't prove it how would you feel about being charged with A+A?
Given that you have no evidence that one of these people was actually driving I'd say you had very little chance of success with a charge of Aiding and abetting.
After all in this case the non-driver is not lying to the police.
Imagine yourself in that position, you tell the police that the other person was driving, he lies and says it was you. What can you do? you can't prove it how would you feel about being charged with A+A?
peg leg,
If one person was lying then the truth is out there to be found. A whole different ball game.
And yes a CPS guideline is there must be a reasonable chance of a successful outcome, but in the matter of most drink driving, the case goes straight to court bypassing the CPS until read to a magistrate.
If one person was lying then the truth is out there to be found. A whole different ball game.
And yes a CPS guideline is there must be a reasonable chance of a successful outcome, but in the matter of most drink driving, the case goes straight to court bypassing the CPS until read to a magistrate.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.