ChatterBank4 mins ago
Drink Driving
Well, we live and learn. A drink driver in Hull (`Traffic Cops` programme on TV) got a �60. fine and one year ban for drink driving. However, what we knew but apparently the Magistrates didn`t was that he was SIX times the limit, in fact so drunk that he just could not complete the required two breath tests within two minutes. The police had no option but to charge him with failing to provide a specimen, but they did have the grace to look a bit shame-faced that they were unable to give the true facts on the charge.
Answers
1 to 5 of 5
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Wellard. 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.
I was gobsmacked by that as well - I had no idea!
What I couldn't understand was if people are required to give two samples within three minutes, why didn't they just start again? i.e, he gave a first sample but couldn't give the second within the allotted time, so why not start again and do two new breath tests?
What I couldn't understand was if people are required to give two samples within three minutes, why didn't they just start again? i.e, he gave a first sample but couldn't give the second within the allotted time, so why not start again and do two new breath tests?
The magistrates have the discretion to impose a higher fine and ban than the 12 months in these circumstances. They should also have had the evidence of the first reading before them in order for them to reach a decision.
Magistrates regularly give 18 months to 2 year bans for this type of offence as it is obvious to a reasonable person that they are trying it on.
In this case I would blame the magistrates
Magistrates regularly give 18 months to 2 year bans for this type of offence as it is obvious to a reasonable person that they are trying it on.
In this case I would blame the magistrates
Alas if it were only that simple, pauln90!
Whilst the maximum penalty for this offence is six months imprisonment and a lifetime ban, magistrates� sentencing guidelines show a starting point of a 12 month disqualification and a community sentence, so the only real mystery is why only a fine (and a small one at that) was imposed and not a community penalty.
The idea of magistrates being provided with evidence of the first reading is laudable, but not on. Such evidence is inadmissible to support the offence of failing to provide a specimen and if it were heard �in error� it would have to be disregarded. It is similar to the offence of failing to provide driver�s details in speed camera cases. That offence cannot be supported by evidence of the alleged speed recorded.
Magistrates have to provide reasons for all of their decisions, especially when they depart from their guidelines. The prosecution could have made more of any evidence which might have demonstrated the defendant�s ability to drive (but could not use the single breath reading). It seems possible that they did not do so.
Don�t always blame their Worships. Very often to provide a good headline, newspapers and TV producers sometimes �forget� to mention salient facts which the magistrates have taken into account.
Whilst the maximum penalty for this offence is six months imprisonment and a lifetime ban, magistrates� sentencing guidelines show a starting point of a 12 month disqualification and a community sentence, so the only real mystery is why only a fine (and a small one at that) was imposed and not a community penalty.
The idea of magistrates being provided with evidence of the first reading is laudable, but not on. Such evidence is inadmissible to support the offence of failing to provide a specimen and if it were heard �in error� it would have to be disregarded. It is similar to the offence of failing to provide driver�s details in speed camera cases. That offence cannot be supported by evidence of the alleged speed recorded.
Magistrates have to provide reasons for all of their decisions, especially when they depart from their guidelines. The prosecution could have made more of any evidence which might have demonstrated the defendant�s ability to drive (but could not use the single breath reading). It seems possible that they did not do so.
Don�t always blame their Worships. Very often to provide a good headline, newspapers and TV producers sometimes �forget� to mention salient facts which the magistrates have taken into account.
1 to 5 of 5
