Bizarre mitigation plea for drunk driving

[Arrowfoot]

This was odd in many ways and she was represented by a lawyer.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/teetotal-school-worker-caught-drink-25165905
https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...-who-doesnt-usually-drink-21788682teetotaller because of religion

• pressured to drink 2 glasses of wine by friends
• 59 mg, legal limit is 35 mg
• former art historian became special needs teaching assistant
• lost her job over the arrest
• working as dentist receptionist now
• gave lift to 2 males arguing verbally and physically with 3 women because she did not want them to follow the 3 women as she was victim of domestic violence
• she saw them in the carpark, strangers
• she speeding to get the males away from the women.
• driving over 50 mph over 30 mph road

It appears that her Lawyer need to be looked into.

 

[Drago]

Apparently shes tee total.

But only when she's not drinking alcohol. Seriously.

People are so keen to wheedle, whine and weasel their way through court they often forget that in straightforward cases where youre bang to rights youre often better off fessing up, apologising, showing some contrition, and taking it on the chin. However, this is strangely unfashionable, possibly because solicitors charge per hour and habe a vested interest in drawing things out.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Restaurant at 4am. Yeah right.

 

[BoldonLad]

I don't know about bizarre mitigation, but, certainly managed to work almost a "full house" into the list

 

[gbb]

I try not to judge someone else (inevitably i do sometimes but i try to keep it in check)...and the following is a similar story that shows how something can suddenly go wrong..
Late 30s fella at an industrial site, worked there for years, good pay, married, with kids, a generally good chap. On a works night out, the younger colleagues were 'indulging' in cocaine, apparently a regular thing. He was offered a try, never done anything like it before, but thought...what the heck.
His next work day, they ran some random drugs tests....and he failed.
Sacked. Then he has to face his wife and family, rebuild his life, find another job etc etc.
All for one moments stupidity.

 

[HMS_Dave]

No sympathy and no mercy for drink drivers...

 

[Smokin Joe]

T
It appears that her Lawyer need to be looked into.

Why?

A lawyers job is to articulate his client's case before the court, no matter how ridiculous or implausible the persons defence appears to be. The jury members are the people who decide how strong the case is.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

The lawyer would be looked at if they had persuaded their client that a totally bananas defence had a chance of working - because doing so increases the amount they can charge
Or failed to advise their client thatthis defence has almost zero chance of working
If the client insisted on it - or insisted that it was the truth and stuck to it
Then the lawyer would have to do their best to run with it

maybe

 

[Drago]

The problem is lawuers are well known for broadly operating against their clients best interest.

For example, in custody its quite common for lawyers to tell their clients to go 'no comment'. indeed, many companies have that as a policy. However, a no comment never makes matters better.

If the evidence is poor, a denial will likely have the suspect refused charge and on their way home, whereas a 'no comment' leaves suspicions unanswered and makes a charge far more likely.

If the evidence is good and a charge inevitable anyway, a 'no comment'is simply pointless.

All a "no comment" interview does is make it more likely that the client will get to Court, and the solicitor will earn another payday. Thers are no circumstances where it makes things better for their client.

There is only one way to stop this. Courts give credit to defendents who plead guilty, thus typically earning a lower sentence or penalty. Change the law so they only get such credit if they plead guilty prior to court - itll save millions in wasted court process, free up court time to deal with the massive backlogs, and stop solicitors manipupating their clients responses for their own enrichment - its a long, long way from the reality to suggest that defence solicitors in the criminal justice process put their clients best interests ahead of other considerations.

 

[steveindenmark]

This is not mitigation it is just trying it on. The solicitors should be in the dock for daylight robbery. No doubt they charged her an arm and a leg to represent her.

 

[DRM]

No sympathy, just another boo hoo I’m a victim type, she made a succession of bad decisions, so tough, she cocked up, live with it

 

[DRM]

The most astounding part is the bit stating a woman who had been the victim of domestic violence picked up and drove away with two men who were strangers to her and who had been arguing verbally and physically with three women, because she didn't want them to follow the women.

Quite, a most peculiar excuse

 

[DaveReading]

If the evidence is poor, a denial will likely have the suspect refused charge and on their way home, whereas a 'no comment' leaves suspicions unanswered and makes a charge far more likely.

A charge far more likely in spite of the aforesaid "poor evidence" ?

 

[Arrowfoot]

Why?

A lawyers job is to articulate his client's case before the court, no matter how ridiculous or implausible the persons defence appears to be. The jury members are the people who decide how strong the case is.

She is pleading guilty and offering mitigation. There is no jury.

First timer is not a custodial sentence. Its the sentencing guideline. The Lawyer should have told her that. The magistrate had tell her to calm her down as she was weeping. He should have guided her with the mitigation plea that he was proposing and he instead went for quantity instead of quality.

All he had to do was to offer the plea that she does not drink for religious purpose but did so to please her friends. Which many of us do things under peer pressure to maintain friendship. And that her body was not used to alcohol and could not break it down fast enough. And it was out of character for her. Perfectly acceptable as a mitigation plea.

The rest of things including the thing about offering 2 male strangers a lift and speeding to get them away from 3 females sounds silly. She losing a job opportunity even before the conviction is ludicrous. She did not commit, burglary, fraud or treason.

I also note that she is migrated to UK from Turkey and ended up relying on an idiot or he was taking advantage of her.

He is the interesting part. The magistrate telling her that it is not custodial sentence is probably suggest that he too suspected that the lawyer was taking her for ride.

The law does not state the sentencing guideline. So if you are gullible, the lawyer will tell you that he saved you with his mitigation plea.

 

[fossyant]

A family friend has just been banged up for drink driving. Thing is, if she'd been honest and not lied (she's a lawyer) and actually said she was suffering with bad mental health, she would have got a slightly lesser sentence, but she told a story about a home made health drink that had fermented. Truth is she was/is in a bad place and got smashed off her face and drove.

Her career and big home and range rover will be gone now. Stupidity