Film, Media & TV7 mins ago
Over the limit
My husband was stopped at the weekend and was twice the legal limit when breathalised. He has a clean licence and has never been in any trouble before. We live in Scotland. What size of fine can we expect? And will he lose his licence?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by lynbrown. 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.
Depending on the circumstances, your husband may have been quite justified in driving whilst over the limit - whether twice, thrice, or whatever times the legal limit. The law does excuse drink driving in certain (and very narrow and strict) circumstances.
If not fully justified or excusable, perhaps there were mitigating circumstances that led your husband to drive his car while he was unfit to do so.
Or perhaps, there are no circumstances that excuse or mitigate your husbands actions, and he just did think or care about the potential consequences of his driving whilst over the legal limit.
Whatever the circumstances, you need to contact a solicitor who is skilled in defending road traffic law offences. www.roadtrafficlaw.com (a Scottish firm) is a good starting point.
Until the circumstances of the offence are known it is impossible to say what will (or should) happen to your husband. Sometimes the law makes it possible to excuse us from driving, stealing, assaulting, or even killing, where it is usually inexcusable. Other times we are not excused, but the circumstances are taken into account and may mitigate the behaviour and thus, a less severe sentence is given.
If not fully justified or excusable, perhaps there were mitigating circumstances that led your husband to drive his car while he was unfit to do so.
Or perhaps, there are no circumstances that excuse or mitigate your husbands actions, and he just did think or care about the potential consequences of his driving whilst over the legal limit.
Whatever the circumstances, you need to contact a solicitor who is skilled in defending road traffic law offences. www.roadtrafficlaw.com (a Scottish firm) is a good starting point.
Until the circumstances of the offence are known it is impossible to say what will (or should) happen to your husband. Sometimes the law makes it possible to excuse us from driving, stealing, assaulting, or even killing, where it is usually inexcusable. Other times we are not excused, but the circumstances are taken into account and may mitigate the behaviour and thus, a less severe sentence is given.
New Judge: I gave an honest answer that covered all three circumstances: Excuse, Mitigation, and no excuse or mitigation. It was clearly not intended to be pessimistic or optimistic. Just a clear and valid answer that the answer to the question depends upon all the relevant facts and circumstances being known.
The only facts that are known is that the questioners husband drove his vehicle whilst twice over the prescribed limit.
I deliberately did not disclose the circumstances in which the offence may be excused or mitigated and, for the record, did not even consider what you describe as 'special reasons' - whatever that may be.
The only facts that are known is that the questioners husband drove his vehicle whilst twice over the prescribed limit.
I deliberately did not disclose the circumstances in which the offence may be excused or mitigated and, for the record, did not even consider what you describe as 'special reasons' - whatever that may be.
I like the way Stu Dent refers to how the Law allegedly excuses D+D in what s/he calls "certain circumstances". Really? Please, Stu Dent, explain what those "certain circumstances" are? Please give me an example. I've never heard of them, personally. I'm fascinated to know what exactly they are.
And I'd also be very interested as well to know what Stu Dent also means by "Excuse, Mitigation and no excuse or mitigation". There again, no explanations or examples given.
lynbrown, I think that your husband may well end up with at least 12 months disqualification plus a fine which will be determined by the Court which has, believe it or not, tariffs for such matters.
And from the few details given it will be most unusual if he is not ultimately disqualified unless he "gets off" on a technicality, or unless he can afford the type of lawyer who has succeeded at least on several occasions by getting high-profile celebrities off driving offences. I believe his name is Nick Freeman but most of us could not afford to lace his boots.
And I'd also be very interested as well to know what Stu Dent also means by "Excuse, Mitigation and no excuse or mitigation". There again, no explanations or examples given.
lynbrown, I think that your husband may well end up with at least 12 months disqualification plus a fine which will be determined by the Court which has, believe it or not, tariffs for such matters.
And from the few details given it will be most unusual if he is not ultimately disqualified unless he "gets off" on a technicality, or unless he can afford the type of lawyer who has succeeded at least on several occasions by getting high-profile celebrities off driving offences. I believe his name is Nick Freeman but most of us could not afford to lace his boots.
Let�s put this to bed.
The offence of driving with Excess Alcohol carries a mandatory minimum 12 month disqualification (or 36 months for a subsequent offence within 10 years of the first). Magistrates have no discretion in this matter. Normal �excuse� or mitigation will not avoid a ban.
However, a defendant may make representations that �Special Reasons� (and that�s what the legislation calls them, not what I describe them as) surrounding the offence itself exist which would allow the Bench not to disqualify. Examples of �Special Reasons� which immediately spring to mind are �spiked� drinks, or having to flee a scene by driving because of immediate fear for one�s life or safety, when otherwise no driving was planned. Note that such an argument cannot be made in respect of the offender (e.g. loss of employment, loss of home etc.).
Although such an argument needs to be proved only on �the balance of probabilities� (not �beyond reasonable doubt�) it is nonetheless a difficult argument with which to succeed. Furthermore no such circumstances were mentioned by lynbrown (and they probably would have been had they existed). Hence my consideration was that your opening gambit (� Depending on the circumstances, your husband may have been quite justified in driving whilst over the limit...�) whilst quite true, was unduly optimistic.
Of course it is also true that we have only an outline of the offence, but usually AB-ers posing such questions include all relevant information.
My view on the presumption of innocence is that it is a legal presumption not a fact, and is made in circumstances where there may be doubt about the guilt of the accused.
lynbrown cast no such doubt.
The offence of driving with Excess Alcohol carries a mandatory minimum 12 month disqualification (or 36 months for a subsequent offence within 10 years of the first). Magistrates have no discretion in this matter. Normal �excuse� or mitigation will not avoid a ban.
However, a defendant may make representations that �Special Reasons� (and that�s what the legislation calls them, not what I describe them as) surrounding the offence itself exist which would allow the Bench not to disqualify. Examples of �Special Reasons� which immediately spring to mind are �spiked� drinks, or having to flee a scene by driving because of immediate fear for one�s life or safety, when otherwise no driving was planned. Note that such an argument cannot be made in respect of the offender (e.g. loss of employment, loss of home etc.).
Although such an argument needs to be proved only on �the balance of probabilities� (not �beyond reasonable doubt�) it is nonetheless a difficult argument with which to succeed. Furthermore no such circumstances were mentioned by lynbrown (and they probably would have been had they existed). Hence my consideration was that your opening gambit (� Depending on the circumstances, your husband may have been quite justified in driving whilst over the limit...�) whilst quite true, was unduly optimistic.
Of course it is also true that we have only an outline of the offence, but usually AB-ers posing such questions include all relevant information.
My view on the presumption of innocence is that it is a legal presumption not a fact, and is made in circumstances where there may be doubt about the guilt of the accused.
lynbrown cast no such doubt.
I say again. I am neither optimistic nor pessimistic about Mr Brown's chances before a court. Why? Because we know very little other than the fact that Mr Brown's proportion of alcohol:breath exceeded the prescribed limit. Though the offence is a strict liability offence, there are defences (Special Reasons) that may be presented (depending on the circumstances) that may mitigate or even completely excuse the accused. That's what a good lawyer would be trying to find out and pretendy judges and hang em and flog em types would just gloss over.
Defences: http://www.drinkdrivinglaw.co.uk/drink_driving _defences.htm
Of course, not reading the question properly, making assumptions, and not asking the right questions might make it a bit less complicated for some of you. But it won't help you give an accurate answer.
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2006HCJA C37.html
My advice, Ms Brown, is to stay away from sites like this (which is what I'll be doing from now) and consult a solicitor. They know what they're doing, most (not all) on here clearly don't.
In answer to the question though: Mr Brown might get a very large fine or he might not be fined at all. He may lose his licence but then again, he might not. The outcome will depend on all the relevant facts and circumstances being heard. If he just didn't fancy walking home from the pub he's had it. If he was fleeing an escaped and very angry Rhino from Edinburgh Zoo I'd say he has a chance.
How do you like them apples now, Parrafin?
Defences: http://www.drinkdrivinglaw.co.uk/drink_driving _defences.htm
Of course, not reading the question properly, making assumptions, and not asking the right questions might make it a bit less complicated for some of you. But it won't help you give an accurate answer.
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2006HCJA C37.html
My advice, Ms Brown, is to stay away from sites like this (which is what I'll be doing from now) and consult a solicitor. They know what they're doing, most (not all) on here clearly don't.
In answer to the question though: Mr Brown might get a very large fine or he might not be fined at all. He may lose his licence but then again, he might not. The outcome will depend on all the relevant facts and circumstances being heard. If he just didn't fancy walking home from the pub he's had it. If he was fleeing an escaped and very angry Rhino from Edinburgh Zoo I'd say he has a chance.
How do you like them apples now, Parrafin?
Sorry to be the cause of such dissent. He has consulted a lawyer and i was merely seeking a general overview, based on others experiences. I know that opinions given on this site are simply that - opinions. The actual judgement will happen at the end of March, but you have all given me food for thought. Please dont take all these posts so seriously. He is not really my husband - I just said that to simplify things.
You really are an argumentative bleeder, Stu!
I don�t know where you obtained your qualifications. It was obviously a different place to where I got mine (GCE �O� Level Woodwork (Failed)).
In between being taught the correct way to make a mortise and tenon joint I was taught that the word �them� should never be used as an adjective, only as a pronoun. I admit that this was taught to me some years ago, so I thought I�d better look it up to ensure that the passage of time had not impaired my memory too much, or that more modern thinking had not overridden the rigid rules that were carved into me:
http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000257.htm
http://grammarstars.blogspot.com/2008/08/41-th em-and-those-and-problems-they.html
As far as I can see, in your sentence �How do you like them apples...�, the apples are being described by the word �them�. It is thus being used as an adjective, not as an objective pronoun as it would in �How do you like them?� (without the apples).
But then, as well as being a �prentendy judge�, perhaps I�m a prentendy English teacher as well!
Whatever discussion sites you grace with your contributions in the future, I wish you (but most importantly the other users) well.
Sorry to have hijacked your thread, lynbrown.
I don�t know where you obtained your qualifications. It was obviously a different place to where I got mine (GCE �O� Level Woodwork (Failed)).
In between being taught the correct way to make a mortise and tenon joint I was taught that the word �them� should never be used as an adjective, only as a pronoun. I admit that this was taught to me some years ago, so I thought I�d better look it up to ensure that the passage of time had not impaired my memory too much, or that more modern thinking had not overridden the rigid rules that were carved into me:
http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000257.htm
http://grammarstars.blogspot.com/2008/08/41-th em-and-those-and-problems-they.html
As far as I can see, in your sentence �How do you like them apples...�, the apples are being described by the word �them�. It is thus being used as an adjective, not as an objective pronoun as it would in �How do you like them?� (without the apples).
But then, as well as being a �prentendy judge�, perhaps I�m a prentendy English teacher as well!
Whatever discussion sites you grace with your contributions in the future, I wish you (but most importantly the other users) well.
Sorry to have hijacked your thread, lynbrown.
The phrase is 'How do you like them apples' whether it is an incorrect use of the English language or not. Anyway, as I have learned, it is an Americanism, so there you go. Perhaps it explains why it is "incorrect". In fact, it does!
http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/38/me ssages/1519.html
http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/h ow+do+you+like+them+apples.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2004/jan/ 16/comment.business
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content /jul2006/tc20060719_557792.htm
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c hronicle/archive/2004/10/20/FDG6U99KHS1.DTL
There are many more links - it's a very common expression and I'm surprised that none of you are aware of it.. I was also surprised it wasn't checked before writing abusive and vitriolic responses (I exclude you on that count New Judge, your comments are just kind of sneery - though you are still one of the better contributers around here and can at least argue a point).
So anyway, there we have it, and this is where I am leaving it. I am very sorry that I attempted to help someone, because it just wasn't worth the hassle caused by the unwarranted abuse and criticism. Too many people on here see AB as a competition. I gave an alternative opinion and immediately some of you attacked me. Firstly on my arg
http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/38/me ssages/1519.html
http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/h ow+do+you+like+them+apples.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2004/jan/ 16/comment.business
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content /jul2006/tc20060719_557792.htm
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c hronicle/archive/2004/10/20/FDG6U99KHS1.DTL
There are many more links - it's a very common expression and I'm surprised that none of you are aware of it.. I was also surprised it wasn't checked before writing abusive and vitriolic responses (I exclude you on that count New Judge, your comments are just kind of sneery - though you are still one of the better contributers around here and can at least argue a point).
So anyway, there we have it, and this is where I am leaving it. I am very sorry that I attempted to help someone, because it just wasn't worth the hassle caused by the unwarranted abuse and criticism. Too many people on here see AB as a competition. I gave an alternative opinion and immediately some of you attacked me. Firstly on my arg
Latest Posts
ChatterBank13 mins ago
Body & Soul25 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles29 mins ago
Crosswords31 mins ago
ChatterBank52 mins ago
