Drink Driving

[cassa333]

Hi,

I've just read in my local paper that a man with 70 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath has had his charges of brink driving and driving while unfit to drive due to drink (I thodidn't know there was two the same) dismissed because the CPS offered no evidence. The prosecution was ordered to pay him over £3500 in wasted cost plus the yet to be determined amount for legal costs.

It gives no details on why they gave no evidence or anything but just wondered how can there be no evidence if they have a 70/100 positive breath test? Was he guilty and they lost the paperwork or did they get paperwork muddled with someone else?

On the other hand why would you appeal if you know you are guilty. Surely you know you are a danger to yourself and others if you drink and drive?

[TheChair]

"It gives no details on why they gave no evidence or anything but just wondered how can there be no evidence if they have a 70/100 positive breath test?"
Well, it doesn't say they have a positive breath test, it says he was charged for a positive breath test, so one possibility is that they DON'T have the test.
Another could be that they don't have evidence that he was driving.
Yest another could be that the testing equipment was incorrectly calibrated.
The fact that costs were awarded against them, certainly implies either a major cockup or some kind of impropriety on the part of the police or the CPS.

[Old_Geezer]

And on the other hand why would you not appeal if you thought there was a chance of getting away with something you'd done wrong ? Well unless you are a masochist of course.

[EDDIE51]

They didn't have any evidence that's why they 'offered no evidence'.
As 'The Chair' says there must be more to this, normally they would have just dropped the case but in this case they have had to pay costs. Looks like a *** up, stitch up or incompetence.

[EDDIE51]

I actually know a person who was charged with drink driving but he saw that the breath test machine was past it's calibration date and not re-calibrated. They had to drop the case.

[RATTER15]

Maybe they were relying just on the road side breathalyser, not accurate enough for a conviction. Sounds like a cock up some where.

[cassa333]

Yes it seems logical that there was a cock up somewhere but I am just curious why they took him to court without checking they had all the right evidence?

I wonder if they do it so often and that most people just plead guilty it is easier than doing it right?

[EDDIE51]

Yes, people often plead guilty as they can't face trying to prove innocence in court.

[RATTER15]

I read somewhere that 75% of criminals are only able to be convicted on the basis of a confession.

Without the confession, the prosecution could not proceed due to lack of evidence.

[cassa333]

Never plead guilty even if caught red handed then Ratter lol

[RATTER15]

cassa333 "Never plead guilty even if caught red handed then Ratter lol"

There are many getting away with that as well, a good solicitor helps!

[cassa333]

Lol

I have often had thoughts of Murdering some annoying twit. Hmmmm perhaps now is the time?

[ToraToraTora]

the CPS are a complete shower.

[New Judge]

First, an explanation of the offences:

There are two separate offences involving vehicles and excess alcohol. One is driving whilst over the prescribed limit (which carries a mandatory minimum of twelve months disqualification). The other is being “in charge” of a vehicle whilst over the prescribed limit (this carries no mandatory disqualification but a minimum of ten penalty points on conviction). Both these offences involve a roadside breath test (which is just a screening test to establish if a more accurate test is justified) and a test back at the nick which is more accurate and which is used for evidential purposes.

There are also two other offences, namely of being “unfit to drive through drink (or drugs)”. These are similar (driving and “in charge”) and carry the same penalties. However, these are not evidenced by breath/blood/urine tests but by subjective assessment of the driver’s fitness to drive.

The drink-driving legislation (that is, the legislation describing the actual procedure) is complex and involved. The routine that has to be followed both at the roadside and at the nick is carefully prescribed and must be followed to the letter. Various requests for information must be made of the driver, various warnings must be given to him and the physical process of taking the test(s) is also rigid. It is easy for a competent solicitor or barrister to notice if any of the various steps have been omitted or carried out incorrectly. I haven’t seen a set for a while but the paperwork for processing a suspect runs to about 30 to 35 steps as far as I can recall. A deficiency or shortcoming in any one of these can jeopardise a prosecution.

Of course we don’t know what happened here. When the prosecution “offers no evidence” in a trial it does not mean they have no evidence (if they had none the matter would not have made it to court in the first place). If is the formal way of discontinuing proceedings. They may do so, for example, because they have laid alternative charges and, having decided on which one they were going to pursue, they “offer no evidence” on the other. They may also do so when they realise that there is a deficiency in their case and that there is no prospect of a conviction. The deficiency may have not become apparent until the court hearing. I suspect that is what may have happened here.

“On the other hand why would you appeal if you know you are guilty.”

By “appeal” I presume you mean plead not guilty. Many defendants who have committed offences plead not guilty for a variety of reasons. The burden is on the prosecution to prove their guilt. The defendant may believe that there is insufficient evidence to convict them, or that witnesses with vital evidence may not turn up to give it. They may also have been advised that there is a shortcoming in the procedures adopted to gather evidence so they plead not guilty and let the court decide on the matter.