So Lets Shaft Our Farmers.....
News2 mins ago
photographic evidence
Hi
if the defence lawyer states that their client did not drive a car while under the influence of drink and advise the prosecution of such before the trial must the prosecution provide photographic evidence at this point or can they withold this information until the trial date?
and if the police do not stop the car until the person is at home and not in the car can the person still be prosecuted for drink driving !
thanks :-)
if the defence lawyer states that their client did not drive a car while under the influence of drink and advise the prosecution of such before the trial must the prosecution provide photographic evidence at this point or can they withold this information until the trial date?
and if the police do not stop the car until the person is at home and not in the car can the person still be prosecuted for drink driving !
thanks :-)
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by aine07. 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.
the asnwer to the second half is Yes. Same as you can be prosecuted for murder even if you've gone home afterward.
They will have to produce some sort of evidence - it doesn't have to be photographs; there may be a whole convent full of nuns who will swear they saw the car swerving all over the road and smelt the driver's breath.
Photos in themselves can't show if a driver was drunk, but they'll probably produce any if they have them. Sorry, I don't know at what point they have to do it though.
They will have to produce some sort of evidence - it doesn't have to be photographs; there may be a whole convent full of nuns who will swear they saw the car swerving all over the road and smelt the driver's breath.
Photos in themselves can't show if a driver was drunk, but they'll probably produce any if they have them. Sorry, I don't know at what point they have to do it though.
Hi aine07
Sorry, are you asking whether the prosecution NEED photographic evidence in the situation as you have described i.e. driver not detained in car or whether, IF they have it, should it be disclosed pre-charge?.
As JNO states, yes, a person can be prosecuted for drink driving even after they have got home but if they claim they had comsumed alcohol after driving then post-driving onsumption and back calculations are required by an expert witness.
Sorry, are you asking whether the prosecution NEED photographic evidence in the situation as you have described i.e. driver not detained in car or whether, IF they have it, should it be disclosed pre-charge?.
As JNO states, yes, a person can be prosecuted for drink driving even after they have got home but if they claim they had comsumed alcohol after driving then post-driving onsumption and back calculations are required by an expert witness.
jeeeez thats a difficult one to decipher exdc
what I meant was the driver denies driving the car at that point in time but if there is photographic evidence ie driving on motorway with ANPR cameras and the car has been tagged previously then does the prosecution need to tell the defence before the main trial that there is evidence of the driver! I hope this makes sense!!! :(
what I meant was the driver denies driving the car at that point in time but if there is photographic evidence ie driving on motorway with ANPR cameras and the car has been tagged previously then does the prosecution need to tell the defence before the main trial that there is evidence of the driver! I hope this makes sense!!! :(
ok heres the story...
person drives car, car is tagged as someone calls police to say think there is a drunk driver. driver returns home, police arrives 5 mins later and breathalyses driver who by this time is not in car, but still holds keys.
person then asks someone else to say they were driving - as they believe there is no photographic evidence
but if there is ANPR cameras on motorway surely this will have been kept by police as evidence to who was driving car 15 mins previously and why has this not been produced by prosecution so far. accused says his lawyer is not aware of any evidence so far and we are 4 weeks away from trial!!!
person drives car, car is tagged as someone calls police to say think there is a drunk driver. driver returns home, police arrives 5 mins later and breathalyses driver who by this time is not in car, but still holds keys.
person then asks someone else to say they were driving - as they believe there is no photographic evidence
but if there is ANPR cameras on motorway surely this will have been kept by police as evidence to who was driving car 15 mins previously and why has this not been produced by prosecution so far. accused says his lawyer is not aware of any evidence so far and we are 4 weeks away from trial!!!
Does your friend have any witnesses to back him up? having the keys in his possession does not mean to say he was driving however it does suggest that an intention to drive was there, example....guy goes out on a night out takes his car but cant afford a taxi to take him home, he gets in the car to get a sleep and the police find him there, as he has the keys he's classed as in control of the vehicle, now as your friend was outside the car its harder to prove however if the police have been tipped off re a drunk driver it seems very plausible that when they arrive they find the reported drunk driver with keys on him, whilst not damming it seems that its something too good to be true. probably not the answer you were looking for but if he has no witnesses for collaboration then i'd say he's probably looking at a ban. has he any previous?
avi.. the person says he wasnt driving but there maybe photographic evidence from the motorway to confirm that actually he was. the defence lawyer says he hasnt been told of any from the prosecution but its too much of a coincidence that police turned up at house less than 5 mins later!!! and there are ANPR cameras on motorway also they must show WHO was driving car!!
anpr's are for number plates only they cant possibly use them as they just store numberplate data, if a picture was taken then i'm sure it would be very low quality so i don't think they could use that to finger someone.
As Jackthehat says he should just own up to it, no judge in his right mind will let a drunk driver off unless the lawyer can prove the authorities were targeting this individual
As Jackthehat says he should just own up to it, no judge in his right mind will let a drunk driver off unless the lawyer can prove the authorities were targeting this individual
Okay so what's your game plan anyway? Imagine there is no photographic evidence, the old bill turn up arrest ' the suspect' who has the keys and presumably the car at his address, do a test to confirm he's over the limit, who are you saying was driving the car, or has your missus agreed to say it was her? It's all looking very shakey to me tbh, and I can't see anything this chaotic washing with a court for a minute.
there are cameras on the motorway which I presume are ANPR cameras which I was told are high resolution. the person was driving but has previous and drives for his work so will lose his job etc etc.. as he wasnt caught in the car he wants the law to prove he was driving and would prefer if someone else says they were driving mainly because his lawyer says the law has to prove he was driving. If the Police turn up 5 minutes after he parks the car there is no way thats just a coincidence and no way was he tailed 30miles from the original scene! so the question is what triggered the police arriving 5 mins after the car was parked? and if its the trigger on the motorway then can that camera show the driver?? hope this makes sense!
So, despite him being bothered enough about the prospect of him losing his licence......he's not bothered enough *not* to drive whilst drunk?!?
It really doesn't matter what caused the police to turn up at his house, they did and he tested positive.
Now, he can take his chance and fight it in court but if the judgement goes against him (whatever the evidence) the courts will frown upon his NG plea.....and trying to persuade someone else to claim they were driving (what if there is photographic evidence?) is tantamount to perverting the course of justice......
AND he has previous.......he's not learning his lessons, so perhaps a little while without his licence might concentrate his mind and give him time to reflect?
It really doesn't matter what caused the police to turn up at his house, they did and he tested positive.
Now, he can take his chance and fight it in court but if the judgement goes against him (whatever the evidence) the courts will frown upon his NG plea.....and trying to persuade someone else to claim they were driving (what if there is photographic evidence?) is tantamount to perverting the course of justice......
AND he has previous.......he's not learning his lessons, so perhaps a little while without his licence might concentrate his mind and give him time to reflect?
JTH I get your point completely and do not disagree with the sentiment. Its the point that the lawyer says there isnt any evidence which IMO cannot be true and I want to persuade the person to plead guilty but without some conviction of "there must be evidence" the person will be "their own worst enemy" I also know the person who they want to convince to take the wrap!!!
