photographic evidence

[aine07]

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 :-)

[sandyRoe]

Isn't there a Lib-Dem MP who's said to have persuaded his then wife to take the penalty points?

[jackthehat]

Chris Huhne but that was nothing to do with DD........

[sandyRoe]

True. But it should act as a reminder that todays alibi might tomorrow be the accuser.

[aine07]

yeah I know but nothing happened to her or did it??
All Im trying to do is ask the right question of him or the lawyer to make the silly begger realise that he just needs to accept it! which is looking more and more unlikely...

[factor-fiction]

Was the person (wife) insured to drive the vehicle? If she claims to have been driving but wasn't insured to do so that could cause problems for both of them

[aine07]

insured - no problem there.

[sandyRoe]

Could they both end up charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice?

[aine07]

sandyroe - theres a very good question...???

[New Judge]

To cut to the chase the prosecution have to disclose all the evidence they have before the matter comes to court. This also includes any material which they do not intend to use.

To make out the offence of driving with excess alcohol they have to prove that (a) the person was actually driving and (b) that he was over the legal limit at the time. They do not need photographic evidence to prove (b). Witnesses who may have seen the driver may have given evidence to that effect.

[aine07]

ok so they can prove (b) as he took a breath test but he was not driving at time of incident!
there appears to be no witnesses other than perhaps police officers but i cannot confirm this without seeing the statements. so best thing to do is ask Lawyer what evidence there is including photographic!

[New Judge]

Exactly.

In fact there was an error in my earlier post. It should have read

"They do not need photographic evidence to prove (A) [That he was driving the car]."

You (or your lawyer) need to see the evidence that the prosecution has to support their claim that you were driving. As I said, it does not have to be photographic. Eye witnesses who have made a statement and who are prepared to give evidence in court will do. Also bear in mind that if they have evidence connected with this matter which they do not intend to use (such as photographs which do not clearly show you being the driver) this must also be disclosed to you.

You and your representative can then decide how you should plead.