Driver over limit banned at Dover

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS THE UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUM (INTERACTIVE)
1

An intoxicated Lithuanian lorry driver, who was stopped at Dover docks after his Scania truck was reported to be driving erratically, lost his licence within two hours of being charged for drunk-driving by Kent Police.

Romualdas Rocys, 48, was stopped by officers on Tuesday 26 June, who discovered he was three-times over the legal drink-driving limit.

Using the Virtual Court System, which Kent Police has been operating since August 2009, Rocys was charged for the offence at 9.21am and by 11.35am, he was disqualified from driving in the UK for 36 months. He was also fined £1,500, plus £85 costs.

Detective inspector Bob Platt, who oversees the Virtual Court network in Kent, says: “An HGV is a deadly weapon in the wrong hands and the consequences of driving a lorry whilst drunk are severe.”

He adds that under normal circumstances, a person would be bailed to return to court after being charged, which means that between the date of charge and the court appearance, that person can drive their vehicle.

“By using the Virtual Court Network, a defendant can lose their licence on the same day as charge and therefore the chances of them being a danger on the roads and reoffending is limited,” he explains.

The virtual court uses a secure live video link to allow defendants to appear in front of magistrates while still in custody. The same technology is also used to allow witnesses to provide evidence. The initiative began in May 2009 in London (Camberwell Green) and Kent (Medway), and is now being extended this month to other locations in these areas as well as to Cheshire and Hertfordshire.

Doesn’t say if he was inbound or outbound, one assumes he was inbound and had been enjoying hopsitality in the bar of the ferry - but why only banned from driving in the UK? In theory he could have dropped and swopped with another driver on the ferry terminal and driven back to whence he came!

Does this mean we could get banned in Lithuania and still drive in the UK?

2

the way i see it. he can be convicted by a court whilst still ■■■■■■■ and having no chance of building a case for his defense.

he can only be banned in the uk. the uk courts can’t ban him from driving from anywhere beyond our borders. the uk and ireland have joint recognition of driving disqualifications, however this won’t apply in this case, it would have applied if he was driving on an irish licence.

3

Limeyphil, he doesn’t have a case of defense; He was ■■■■■■■ Shove him back on the ferry after banning and fining and dispose of the lorry. We don’t need all these foreign motors over here working for pocket money, least of all those driven by ■■■■■■■■■■
A good job by Police and court system.

4

yeah if ur banned here u can still drive abroad, depending on insurance. no idea what lithuanain insurance would have to say about convictions in forein countries.

5

limeyphil:
the way i see it. he can be convicted by a court whilst still ■■■■■■■ and having no chance of building a case for his defense.

What defense? He got caught so he has to deal with it! I am all for this, how many times are people put before the Magistrates only for it to be adjourned, they are then free to leg it back to whichever Country they reside and never to return to the UK.

6

Fileep:

limeyphil:
the way i see it. he can be convicted by a court whilst still ■■■■■■■ and having no chance of building a case for his defense.

What defense? He got caught so he has to deal with it! I am all for this, how many times are people put before the Magistrates only for it to be adjourned, they are then free to leg it back to whichever Country they reside and never to return to the UK.

everyone is entitled by law to defend himself. but how can someone do this if they are ■■■■■■■
let’s say the guy parked up, curtains shut and got hammered. then sometime later a copper bangs on the door, tells him to move it, then nicks him for drink driving.

7

limeyphil:

Fileep:

limeyphil:
the way i see it. he can be convicted by a court whilst still ■■■■■■■ and having no chance of building a case for his defense.

What defense? He got caught so he has to deal with it! I am all for this, how many times are people put before the Magistrates only for it to be adjourned, they are then free to leg it back to whichever Country they reside and never to return to the UK.

everyone is entitled by law to defend himself. but how can someone do this if they are ■■■■■■■
let’s say the guy parked up, curtains shut and got hammered. then sometime later a copper bangs on the door, tells him to move it, then nicks him for drink driving.

make sense to me limey

8

limeyphil:

Fileep:

limeyphil:
the way i see it. he can be convicted by a court whilst still ■■■■■■■ and having no chance of building a case for his defense.

What defense? He got caught so he has to deal with it! I am all for this, how many times are people put before the Magistrates only for it to be adjourned, they are then free to leg it back to whichever Country they reside and never to return to the UK.

everyone is entitled by law to defend himself. but how can someone do this if they are ■■■■■■■
let’s say the guy parked up, curtains shut and got hammered. then sometime later a copper bangs on the door, tells him to move it, then nicks him for drink driving.

The scenario you paint is I suppose possible, however, chances are he would have been stone cold sober before he went before the Magistrates(we wouldn’t want a mis-carriage of justice would we). When you take into account the language barrier and the time it takes to get an interpretor, and not to mention the cost of said interpretor! I use them on a regular basis and at £28 per hour it mounts up quick! So again, just desserts and all that!

9

Fileep:

limeyphil:

Fileep:

limeyphil:
the way i see it. he can be convicted by a court whilst still ■■■■■■■ and having no chance of building a case for his defense.

What defense? He got caught so he has to deal with it! I am all for this, how many times are people put before the Magistrates only for it to be adjourned, they are then free to leg it back to whichever Country they reside and never to return to the UK.

everyone is entitled by law to defend himself. but how can someone do this if they are ■■■■■■■
let’s say the guy parked up, curtains shut and got hammered. then sometime later a copper bangs on the door, tells him to move it, then nicks him for drink driving.

The scenario you paint is I suppose possible, however, chances are he would have been stone cold sober before he went before the Magistrates(we wouldn’t want a mis-carriage of justice would we). When you take into account the language barrier and the time it takes to get an interpretor, and not to mention the cost of said interpretor! I use them on a regular basis and at £28 per hour it mounts up quick! So again, just desserts and all that!

yeah to be fair it says a charged time, but there’s no mention of when he was stopped

10

it is a miscarriage of justice. 3 times over the limit, and sentence 2 hours later. that’s illegal.
you can’t be tried whilst ■■■■■■■

11

As above though Phil, it doesn’t say WHEN he was charged.
He was stopped on Tuesday, he may not have been charged until Wednesday morning, once he’d sobered up. Then straight through the court system.

12

Charged, probably had to wait for him to be sober before they put the charge to him! You know as well as me Phil the law is usually an ■■■ and it always seems to favour the offender! Especially when it comes to the element of doubt!

13

cieranc:
As above though Phil, it doesn’t say WHEN he was charged.
He was stopped on Tuesday, he may not have been charged until Wednesday morning, once he’d sobered up. Then straight through the court system.

that’s true. typical half a story. :smiley:
i saw that word “police”. and it sent me on one. :laughing:

14

According to this article he was stopped at 20:00 charged at 09:21 the following morning and convicted by 11:35.

So he would have been sober when charged and convicted :wink:

15

tachograph:
According to this article he was stopped at 20:00 charged at 09:21 the following morning and convicted by 11:35.

So he would have been sober when charged and convicted :wink:

typical ■■■■ trick.

16

limeyphil:

tachograph:
According to this article he was stopped at 20:00 charged at 09:21 the following morning and convicted by 11:35.

So he would have been sober when charged and convicted :wink:

typical ■■■■ trick.

If he was 3x over @ 22:00 . . would he be sober @09:21?

17

limeyphil:
the way i see it. he can be convicted by a court whilst still ■■■■■■■ and having no chance of building a case for his defense.

he can only be banned in the uk. the uk courts can’t ban him from driving from anywhere beyond our borders. the uk and ireland have joint recognition of driving disqualifications, however this won’t apply in this case, it would have applied if he was driving on an irish licence.

There is no defence :exclamation: he was 3 times the limit so the ban is justified, if they let out on bail they would never see him again.

18

He was stopped at 20:00, I would expect the initial brethalyser was carried out within half an hour.
So 13 hours to sober up, more than enough I would have thought.

Enough to be fully compus mentus anyway.

I’m glad they did him in this fashion, as said above he could have just been bailed then done a skip back home, never to return.

19

limeyphil:
it is a miscarriage of justice. 3 times over the limit

Considering your signature is “at home with a hangover” really does explain why you’re so upset over this.

20

I could have got him a good solicitor, but he was out fishing! :stuck_out_tongue: