Bizarre mitigation plea for drunk driving
- Thread starter Arrowfoot
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
swee'pea99
Squire
With links to another tragic case...
Well, she'll have to do her best since she got a 15 month ban. Oh, the pressures of being a socialite...
Well, she'll have to do her best since she got a 15 month ban. Oh, the pressures of being a socialite...
Hacienda71
Mancunian in self imposed exile in leafy Cheshire
Not only is she from the same town as me, but I am pretty sure she was working on reception at the dentist's I was at having a filling done this week. 
grldtnr
Veteran
I disagree, our legal system operates on the basis innocent till found ,proven guilty, has done for yonks, legal defence will always argue any spurious defence,it's in the best interest of the client, be it may he / she is guilty as feck!
The prosecution has to show beyond doubt of the deameanours to make sure it's is incontrovetal.
That's theybit works , ever since the Barons & Magna Carta you can't pardon a hung man, his dead ,bleedin' demised, bereft of life, .....he is a dead parrot.
Pale Rider
Legendary Member
Excess alcohol is a mandatory ban, the length being dependent on the amount over the limit.
Minimum is 12 months, she's been banned for 16, which is bang on the guideline.
In other words, the magistrate has ignored the mitigation.
It is a colourful tale, although I've heard similar.
The lawyer's job is to present the client's case - under instruction - as best as he can, which is what he's done.
None of us were there for the case conference, but it's inevitable the lawyer would have told her something like 'it's mandatory ban of a year or so, but I can put your story across if you want me to'.
I can understand people who never go to court will be interested in this tale, but there really isn't a great deal to see.
This system is already in place to the extent that maximum credit is only available for 'an early guilty plea', usually taken to be the first time a defendant can plead at court.
Less credit will be applied for a guilty plea further along the process, down to zero if convicted by a jury.
Duty solicitors at police stations often advise no comment at least initially because they want to see what the coppers have against the client before deciding how to proceed.
In that respect it's a reasonable, not to say sensible, tactic, although it can be frustrating for the cops.
'Failing to mention now what you later rely on in court' is covered by the police caution, thus defendants who do that are routinely accused by prosecutors of making up a defence later.
It's up to the jury to decide what weight they put on a defence which only appeared late in the day.
Minimum is 12 months, she's been banned for 16, which is bang on the guideline.
In other words, the magistrate has ignored the mitigation.
It is a colourful tale, although I've heard similar.
The lawyer's job is to present the client's case - under instruction - as best as he can, which is what he's done.
None of us were there for the case conference, but it's inevitable the lawyer would have told her something like 'it's mandatory ban of a year or so, but I can put your story across if you want me to'.
I can understand people who never go to court will be interested in this tale, but there really isn't a great deal to see.
This system is already in place to the extent that maximum credit is only available for 'an early guilty plea', usually taken to be the first time a defendant can plead at court.
Less credit will be applied for a guilty plea further along the process, down to zero if convicted by a jury.
Duty solicitors at police stations often advise no comment at least initially because they want to see what the coppers have against the client before deciding how to proceed.
In that respect it's a reasonable, not to say sensible, tactic, although it can be frustrating for the cops.
'Failing to mention now what you later rely on in court' is covered by the police caution, thus defendants who do that are routinely accused by prosecutors of making up a defence later.
It's up to the jury to decide what weight they put on a defence which only appeared late in the day.
Drago
Legendary Member
Well, perhaps you can describe a circumstance where answering a question 'no comment' actually improves the suspect's situtation? I can't think of one.
I worked in the system for 27 years and had more than one solicitor tell me why they advise clients to go NC.
No comment is not frustrating for the cops - it makes a charge more likely. What is frustrating is a bullsheet excuses that take time and energy to check out, but NC is neither a denial or a defence, which moves the matter up the matrix. Thus the dibble don't mind it at all.
Last edited:
PaulSB
Squire
I can't see how "no comment" helps the suspect or accused. If one is innocent then giving one's version of events is clearly the best option.
If guilty confessing should always be the best option. To make "no comment" does nothing other than imply guilt, it's no wonder the police aren't concerned by such action.
If guilty confessing should always be the best option. To make "no comment" does nothing other than imply guilt, it's no wonder the police aren't concerned by such action.
Drago
Legendary Member
It doesnt, Bud.
An admission (or a cough) is great. Provided there is at least some evidence to support the matter then off to court they go, or potentially a caution for a minor matter.
A denial is a denial. If the evidence is poor they walk on a denial, if the evidence is decent they get charged anyway.
A no comment is saying nothing sunstantive, neither a denial or an admission. If the evidence is good, they still get charged. If the evidence is poor, but still valid, the likelihood is theyll still get charged on the basis they are not denying it, so the reasonable grounds persist and the threshold test is met.
The only person anywhere, ever, that benefits from a NC is the solicitor, who like as not gets another payday, often at the public expense.
DaveReading
Don't suffer fools gladly (must try harder!)
The threshold test is whether there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.
How is that satisfied by "poor evidence"?
Pale Rider
Legendary Member
Keeping the coppers 'lean' by making no comment can assist the defendant.
There was a case in Milton Keynes which was the subject of an hour long documentary.
It involved an older Chinese couple burgled because the n'er do wells believed Chinese people held gold or jewellery in their homes for religious or cultural reasons.
The wife of the owner died a short time after being confronted by the burglars.
A suspect was arrested, someone who was well grounded in criminal behaviour, who made no comment throughout.
The police had some evidence, but they needed him to say something, not a confession, just something for them to have a go at to build the case on.
For what it's worth, I thought the case was worth a run in court, having seen weaker ones.
But going no comment in that case almost certainly worked for the defendant.
What is certain is he was never charged.
There was a case in Milton Keynes which was the subject of an hour long documentary.
It involved an older Chinese couple burgled because the n'er do wells believed Chinese people held gold or jewellery in their homes for religious or cultural reasons.
The wife of the owner died a short time after being confronted by the burglars.
A suspect was arrested, someone who was well grounded in criminal behaviour, who made no comment throughout.
The police had some evidence, but they needed him to say something, not a confession, just something for them to have a go at to build the case on.
For what it's worth, I thought the case was worth a run in court, having seen weaker ones.
But going no comment in that case almost certainly worked for the defendant.
What is certain is he was never charged.
Bromptonaut
Rohan Man
That pretty much covers it.
There's a danger that once you open your trap you give the Police a few lines they can pick up on and before you know it you're backed into a corner.
Bottom line is it's for the prosecution to make their case. If 'no comment' really makes Plod more likely to proceed, which I think as @Drago's assertion, then the 'woodentops' moniker has more application than I thought.
Sterlo
Early Retirement Planning
Sounds like she's got very pushy "friends" and/or she's very weak willed. I don't drink and no matter how much I've been "bullied" in the past have stuck to it, even to the point of having drinks spiked in the past and me leaving them causing arguments about wasting money (their fault not mine). I look after me not just fall in with the rest of the crowd. If they don't like it, tough, I won't go out with them again. Drinking anything whilst driving should be banned, ie lower the limit as in most of Scandinavia. I've nothing against anyone drinking, I'm not a crusader against it but peoples lives are at stake if you get behind a wheel, no matter how safe you feel, your reactions are impaired.
