Double the drink drive limit and still not banned WTF

[Accy cyclist]

This is confusing. Did he or did he not drive a motorised vehicle while under the influence of alcohol? The report isn't very clear..

" He told the officers, ‘I had driven from my friend’s house down the road, I have had three glasses of wine and spirits tonight"

Does that mean he drove before or after drinking the wine and spirits?

 

[vernon]

This is confusing. Did he or did he not drive a motorised vehicle while under the influence of alcohol? The report isn't very clear..

" He told the officers, ‘I had driven from my friend’s house down the road, I have had three glasses of wine and spirits tonight"

Does that mean he drove before or after drinking the wine and spirits?

It doesn't really matter. He was successfully prosecuted for the drunk in charge of a vehicle offence. Driving under the influence was more easily defended in court - there were no witnesses to that offence and it would have to be proved that he was intoxicated during the drive. He was caught bang to rights being in charge of a vehicle while intoxicated.

 

[Drago]

[QUOTE 3975309, member: 9609"]its a difficult one, the being in charge whilst under the influence bit. I Used to spend a lot of time tramping in a lorry, would often have a few pints and sleep in the cab, i was definately in charge of the vehicle but was I ever breaking any law, Or even as I type this, I have just had a couple of tinnies, (which in Scotland will quite rightly put me over the limit) I have access to three vehicles parked on the driveway, it could be argued I am in charge of them.[/QUOTE]Your safe, the prosecution have to prove intent to drive, although that wasn't always the case and prior to 2002(?) the onus was on the accused to prove they weren't intending to.

 

[vernon]

Your safe, the prosecution have to prove intent to drive, although that wasn't always the case and prior to 2002(?) the onus was on the accused to prove they weren't intending to.

A friend of my brother's successfully argued in court that he was treating his car as a home and not as potential transport when his wife threw him out of the house after a drunken argument.

 

[Milkfloat]

Or he'll lodge his own warranty with the court (which shouldn't be a problem, given he's a multimillionaire) and then he's not required to have insurance.

Of course, if the court had had any balls it would have banned him (it had the discretion to) and suggested he employs someone to drive him. It's not as if he can't afford it....

So because he could afford it he should be treated to a different conviction to someone who cannot?

 

[Profpointy]

Only if you are suggesting that no one else is ever banned? He was treated differently because he claimed he needed to drive thousands of miles for business. The fact is that doesn't - he can afford to hire someone to drive or use other means.

We should stop letting people get away from being banned on the grounds they 'need' to drive - they don't. No one does.

but wasn't he not-banned as he'd been convicted of the lesser offence of srunk-in-charge rather than drunk driving since there was insufficient evidence for the latter regardless of him quite possible having done that too?

 

[SD1]

stop letting people get away from being banned on the grounds they 'need' to drive - they don't. No one does.

Including Bus drivers, Taxi drivers etc!!!

 

[Markymark]

Or he'll lodge his own warranty with the court (which shouldn't be a problem, given he's a multimillionaire) and then he's not required to have insurance.

Of course, if the court had had any balls it would have banned him (it had the discretion to) and suggested he employs someone to drive him. It's not as if he can't afford it....

He's clearly not that rich - his car is only worth £40K. If you wanted to buy a Porsche that's about as cheap as it gets - I have a car worth more than that.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Oh but there is a deterrent, an eye watering hike in his insurance premiums. Fifteen to twenty years ago someone I know had to shell out £7,000 per year for the minimum insurance insurance cover, Road traffic Act?, something that I don't think is available now. The property developer will have difficulty getting one of the mainstream insurers to consider covering him and he will have to use a specialist broker to fleece him.

His company will pick up the bill and write it off as a business expense.

 

[Markymark]

[QUOTE 3975705, member: 9609"]oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooohhhhh .....
yeah yeah, we all know Laaaaaandon has sucked the rest of the country dry. [/QUOTE]
All I'm saying is that they're making him out to be extremely rich. He probably owns a few buy-to-let mortgaged houses and drives aruond in the cheapest Porsche they make. Not exactly loaded.

 

[JoshM]

So because he could afford it he should be treated to a different conviction to someone who cannot?

To be fair, he is asking the courts for leniency based on his personal circumstances. It's not unfair to expect them to consider all the relevant personal circumstances when determine what kind of impact their sentence will have, is it?

 

[Milkfloat]

For the offence he was found guilty he was committing the sentencing guidelines are a Band B fine and 10 points or consider a ban. Even the next level up in seriousness does not demand a ban. Factors indicating higher culpability 1. LGV, HGV, PSV etc. 2. Ability to drive seriously impaired 3. High likelihood of driving 4. Driving for hire or reward. As far as the evidence shows he did not have the key in the ignition and was making no attempt to drive when he was found. I don't think the court could have done much more.

However, in reality it is highly likely that the twonk is a drink driver and should therefore have his balls squeezed in a vice until they explode, we are just prevented from doing that by a fairly good legal system where without evidence we tend not to convict.

 

[Markymark]

[QUOTE 3975807, member: 9609"]that just shows how out of touch with reality Laaaandoners are.[/QUOTE]
I know poverty when I see it. Saw someone without an iPhone on the tube this morning.

 

[Milkfloat]

He can still be banned for the lesser offence. He wasn't because he claimed he needed to be able to drive. He doesn't.

To be fair, we have no idea why he was not banned - his claim of his need to drive may not have been part of the decision.

 

[Aperitif]

To be fair, we have no idea why he was not banned - his claim of his need to drive may not have been part of the decision.

Not exactly sure, but I think it was something to do with the thousands of miles already motored as part of the person's enterprise - not the expectation upon him driving as a 'get out' from being sentenced. The information got scrambled by the rags and it got published as a 'need to drive...' thing. As the barrister said, it was a magistrate's court business, totally blown up. Perhaps it happens a lot in everyday proceedings - we just don't hear about it as there is no 'angle'.