Should There Be Instant Road Side Bans For Drink/Drug Drivers?

[ToraToraTora]

https://news.sky.com/story/officers-should-be-allowed-to-ban-drug-and-drink-drivers-at-the-roadside-police-chiefs-say-13077983

Good idea and include mobile phone users too.

[andy-hughes]

Yes.

[Redhelen72]

Whilst i agree that stronger jail time is needed for those that kill under the influence, I am wary about giving them the power to ban at the roadside - the station after full testing but not at the roadside.

 

[davebro3]

Yes - after positive evidential tests but without refefence to court.

Roadside breath test & drug wipe not always accurate.

[Hymie]

Apparently the police have had the power to make an instant roadside ban based on the driver’s eyesight since 2013, but quite how they administer the sight test on a dark rainy night is another thing.

 

But if they don’t have the equipment at the roadside to determine the driver’s drug levels that would stand up in a court of law, it would be a slippery slope.

https://www.driving.co.uk/news/drivers-fail-spot-eyesight-tests-banned/

[ToraToraTora]

Well I think in practice it will still be the same as now regarding back to the station, court etc. The only difference is that the ban will start instantly until confirmed or not by the the court. So they ban them go back to the station and do the test and if that is clear they'll be un banned otherwise the ban continues until they get to court and the beak confirms it. I think that's a good thing.

[youngmafbog]

No, the Police are there to uphold the law not Judge.  This would mean the Police would be Judge Jury and executioner.

A compromise woud be an application first thing in the morning to a Magistrate to start the ban.  They should be in Jail overnight anyway.

[barry1010]

Absolutely not.

I am a big supporter of our police but in no way do I want one police officer to be enforcer, judge and jury.

It has been proven that some medication, food and illnesses give false positives on breath and blood tests.

It has also been proven that some officers are corrupt, dishonest or use their powers for personal gain or petty revenge.

This is not a police state and not should it be

 

[youngmafbog]

All for killing whilst DUI being treated as Murder.

[ToraToraTora]

They won't be judge+jury etc, the person will still go to court and the ban will be issued then. The only difference will be when it starts.

[youngmafbog]

Thats not what I am getting from this, maybe I am misreading.

It looks like they want the copper that pulls you at the roadside to issue the ban immediately, where is the Court? where is the brief?

The copper would be enforcer and Judge.

[davebro3]

^^^ having skimmed the article it seems to say that the ban would be imposed by the police at the roadside without further reference to the courts.

Someone stopped & charged is quite unlikely to offend again before their court date I woulda thought.

[ToraToraTora]

davebro: "^^^ having skimmed the article it seems to say that the ban would be imposed by the police at the roadside without further reference to the courts." - If so then that's wrong and I agree with you and YMB but I can't see how that would ever be allowed under the constitution. An accused always has a right for a court appearance, even fixed penalty fines, parking tickets etc do offer the option so I can't see how this would ever get past the legal beagles, let alone Parliament to become statute.

[ToraToraTora]

further to 09:53, it must go to court if you think about it. How long would the ban be? How can an officer at the roadside take all things into consideration? eg what if its not the first offence? A court would give a minumum of 12 months but longer for subsequent offences? What about the fine? possible jail? Surely the case must go to court. To me the road side ban is clearly an interim measure to stop the driver driving for the time it takes to come to court.

[davebro3]

Coppers getting a bit above themselves I think - albeit in the interests of better road safety.

[DTCwordfan]

No, can't have the police acting as a magistrate or judge. Next thing you will want is to bring back hanging for such 'criminals'. Murder for road deaths wouldn't stick anyway in most cases - it would be and is manslaughter.

[barry1010]

The courts don't always give a ban for drink/drug offences (this is wrong in my opinion) if there are extenuating circumstances so I don't see how any police officer could issue a ban.

I've read the article and it doesn't mention a follow up court appearance.

Article 6 of the Human Rights Act gives everyone the right to a fair trial which is fair and held in public.  

 

[ToraToraTora]

barry: "I've read the article and it doesn't mention a follow up court appearance." - It does not mention it but logically it must happen or the whole legal fabric of the space time continuum will collapse😁 Read 09:53/7 it cannot be decided by the Rozzers at the road side. More detail needed but I am certain that if this does come to pass it will just be an interim ban pending court etc. Maybe the judge will offer more on this when he sees it.

[Old_Geezer]

A ridiculous increase in powers in "favour" of a force that continually shows it isn't doing it's job properly already.

 

We seem to get these idiotic suggestions from time to time, but they're usually from some out-of-touch, hard-of-thinking, "think tank", not from the group trying it on to grab more powers.

[ToraToraTora]

I think it's a good idea as long as it is indeed supported by a proper court appearance etc. Well it cannot not be if you think about it.

[douglas9401]

"The constitution", that nebulous and movable feast from ye olde tymes. So ropey they daren't write it down.