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 he was 3 times the limit so the ban is justified, if they let out on bail they would never see him again.
let’s say you’re walking down a street in a foreign country, an old women gets her bag snatched, you catch the mugger and attempt to return the handbag. but the police get hold of you, chuck you in a cell, then a few hours later you’re sentenced.
everyone would say “he got what he deserved”.
i know it’s a completely different set of circumstances. but without a judicial process that millions have died for, we will end up in a police state/communistic system of justice.
everyone should be entitled to justice no matter what the allegation.
limeyphil:
everyone should be entitled to justice no matter what the allegation.
In principle I agree with what you’re saying but it should be noted that according to this article this bloke pleaded guilty and as he was visiting this country there is a possibility that he would have simply not returned here had he been bailed.
The real problem will be if this type of court appearance becomes the norm throughout the country
limeyphil:
i know it’s a completely different set of circumstances. but without a judicial process that millions have died for, we will end up in a police state/communistic system of justice.
everyone should be entitled to justice no matter what the allegation.
Which bit of the judicial process was missing? He was charged, he went to court, (he will have been entitled to the duty solicitor), he was found guilty and he was sentanced.
Perhaps his legal aid advised him to plead guilty based on the evidence.
Perhaps the driver chose to plead guilty based on the evidence.
Perhaps the drivers boss told him to plead guilty.
Just because it went straight to court, doesn’t mean there was any procedural impropriety
Muckaway:
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.
The court and jury system only exists to prove guilt, everyone is innocent until proven guilty, but a court case is unecessary as this case is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the bloke failed a breathtest, so he is guilty of drink driving beyond reasonable doubt, the same definition of the law applies to speed cameras, they saw you speeding and recorded it, you have no defence, it’s so simple, that is what millions have died to protect, they never died so some ■■■■■■■■ can have his day in court wasting everybody’s time and money
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 he was 3 times the limit so the ban is justified, if they let out on bail they would never see him again.
let’s say you’re walking down a street in a foreign country, an old women gets her bag snatched, you catch the mugger and attempt to return the handbag. but the police get hold of you, chuck you in a cell, then a few hours later you’re sentenced.
everyone would say “he got what he deserved”.
i know it’s a completely different set of circumstances. but without a judicial process that millions have died for, we will end up in a police state/communistic system of justice.
everyone should be entitled to justice no matter what the allegation.
Not even slightly close
Being over the limit is clear cut, you are either over the limit or you’re not.
To be charged and convicted of DD you don’t even need to be tested at the road side, if you are far enough gone for the officer to have enough suspicion that you are drunk it is enough to bring you in. The readings taken on the machine at the station are the ones used in court and they don’t lie. You don’t have to be stone cold sober to be charged just below the legal limit for driving. Until then you are locked up.
I have mixed feelings regarding this to be honest. Half of me thinks throw away the key, but the other half thinks Limeyphil’s point is the most interesting and prominent point.
Correct me if i am wrong but for drink driving the machine in the police station is used for measurement, or if refused a blood test from a doctor. If he was arrested at 2000 then charged at 0920 and before the magistrate by 1100. What legal representation did he get? a duty solicitor? one which is employed by the court? payed by the court? was he given the oppertunity to contact his consulate?
While swift justice has its benefits it also has its downfalls. I cant abide drink drivers i think they should be banned forever and never be allowed to drive again if caught,. But i also believe their should be a proper a correct process in the UK justice system which we are currently seeing being eroded. There is a current claim for wrongful imprisonment against a former UKIP party member called Roger Hayes (ukcolumn.org/article/update- … oger-hayes) whom was sentenced to a prison term without trial by jury, or a defence lawyer present. If its justice or not i dont know.
Spacemonkeypg:
I have mixed feelings regarding this to be honest. Half of me thinks throw away the key, but the other half thinks Limeyphil’s point is the most interesting and prominent point.
Correct me if i am wrong but for drink driving the machine in the police station is used for measurement, or if refused a blood test from a doctor. If he was arrested at 2000 then charged at 0920 and before the magistrate by 1100. What legal representation did he get? a duty solicitor? one which is employed by the court? payed by the court? was he given the oppertunity to contact his consulate?
While swift justice has its benefits it also has its downfalls. I cant abide drink drivers i think they should be banned forever and never be allowed to drive again if caught,. But i also believe their should be a proper a correct process in the UK justice system which we are currently seeing being eroded. There is a current claim for wrongful imprisonment against a former UKIP party member called Roger Hayes (ukcolumn.org/article/update- … oger-hayes) whom was sentenced to a prison term without trial by jury, or a defence lawyer present. If its justice or not i dont know.
It is stepping on dangerous ground in my opinion. I haven’t read the whole thing in a broadsheet yet.
the course of justice in this country is being eroded.
it is getting to the point of, if you get nicked, then you’re guilty.
fast track court cases by video link. on the spot fines. motor trade vehicles impounded because the MIB database says a car isn’t insured.
what next? road blocks? ID cards? internment camps?
i’ve been fined by vosa, and the police. on both occasions i proved them to be wrong. however, if was a foreign driver i would have been held captive until the fine (deposit) was paid.
we only have the word of the police that this bloke was drink driving.
for me this isn’t enough.
a friend of mine came out of a local social club about 10 years ago. he and the rest of us were prety hammered. he was sat on the bonnet of his car. his brother had taken the keys earlier in the evening just to make sure my mate didn’t get tempted. but a local traffic officer decided to show off in front of a rookie tasty bird copper. he nicked my mate for DD. it went to court where my mate pleaded not guilty. the CPS dropped it to drunk in charge. my mate pleaded not guilty once again. it then went to trial about a month later. he was found not guilty.
that is judicial process.
that jumped up copper could have ruined my mates future.
that particular copper was always up to something. he was a real pain in the arse round here.
roadhog69:
Doesn’t say if he was inbound or outbound, one assumes he was inbound and had been enjoying hospitality in the bar of the ferry - but why only banned from driving in the UK? In theory he could have dropped and swapped 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?
I doubt a Lithuanian lorry driver can afford ferry prices in the bar, but yes we could get banned from Lithuania but still drive at home. We do not live in the EURASIAN superstate yet.
An American court cannot touch a UK driving licence, we cannot touch a Nigerian licence.
What happens if a British driver gets caught in France or a French driver gets caught in England can they drive in their own countries ?.
In Spain it’s not even a disqualification to be over the limit it is 400 euros on the spot and 6 points on your licence.
Does the driver get a translator? Does he get a solicitor of choice, does he get time to pay or arrange for his shipping agent to assist him.
Phil has made some very valid points on this topic.
Hi Malc,
I agree that Phil has made some very valid points, but I noticed something when I read the link you just provided.
It’s easily missed, so without altering it, I’ve made it RED:
Virtual courts allow a defendant, charged in a police station, to have their first hearing held over secure video link from the magistrates’ court. This can happen within hours of being charged and if the defendant pleads guilty, the court can often sentence on the same day.
From my reading of that, it looks like a not-guilty plea would result in a normal trial.
limeyphil:
the course of justice in this country is being eroded.
it is getting to the point of, if you get nicked, then you’re guilty.
fast track court cases by video link. on the spot fines. motor trade vehicles impounded because the MIB database says a car isn’t insured.
what next? road blocks? ID cards? internment camps?
i’ve been fined by vosa, and the police. on both occasions i proved them to be wrong. however, if was a foreign driver i would have been held captive until the fine (deposit) was paid.
we only have the word of the police that this bloke was drink driving.
for me this isn’t enough.
a friend of mine came out of a local social club about 10 years ago. he and the rest of us were prety hammered. he was sat on the bonnet of his car. his brother had taken the keys earlier in the evening just to make sure my mate didn’t get tempted. but a local traffic officer decided to show off in front of a rookie tasty bird copper. he nicked my mate for DD. it went to court where my mate pleaded not guilty. the CPS dropped it to drunk in charge. my mate pleaded not guilty once again. it then went to trial about a month later. he was found not guilty.
that is judicial process.
that jumped up copper could have ruined my mates future.
that particular copper was always up to something. he was a real pain in the arse round here.
You have answered your own question here Phil! Justice at work, the copper was a ■■■■ and this was sorted via a judge/jury, so whats the problem!
Out of all scenarios you could ever come up with, there are very few where you can say it was ok to Drink & Drive! He will have been dealt with more fairly than if either you or I got brought before a foreign court for the same offence!
limeyphil:
the course of justice in this country is being eroded.
it is getting to the point of, if you get nicked, then you’re guilty.
fast track court cases by video link. on the spot fines. motor trade vehicles impounded because the MIB database says a car isn’t insured.
what next? road blocks? ID cards? internment camps?
i’ve been fined by vosa, and the police. on both occasions i proved them to be wrong. however, if was a foreign driver i would have been held captive until the fine (deposit) was paid.
we only have the word of the police that this bloke was drink driving.
for me this isn’t enough.
a friend of mine came out of a local social club about 10 years ago. he and the rest of us were prety hammered. he was sat on the bonnet of his car. his brother had taken the keys earlier in the evening just to make sure my mate didn’t get tempted. but a local traffic officer decided to show off in front of a rookie tasty bird copper. he nicked my mate for DD. it went to court where my mate pleaded not guilty. the CPS dropped it to drunk in charge. my mate pleaded not guilty once again. it then went to trial about a month later. he was found not guilty.
that is judicial process.
that jumped up copper could have ruined my mates future.
that particular copper was always up to something. he was a real pain in the arse round here.
You have answered your own question here Phil! Justice at work, the copper was a [zb] and this was sorted via a judge/jury, so whats the problem!
Out of all scenarios you could ever come up with, there are very few where you can say it was ok to Drink & Drive! He will have been dealt with more fairly than if either you or I got brought before a foreign court for the same offence!
It’s not about proving drink driving is ok its about ensuring correct justice and procedure is followed. In essence ensuring all people have the right of fair trial.
Look at this case realistically he was stoped while driving it and he was 3x the limit. That ain’t a pint with. Dinner and if it was the next day its one hell of a session. That’s a fair few pints or a decent chunk from a bottle of spirits. He has either give that reading on the machine at the station or from a blood test.
It seems an open and shut case. Drink driving seems very common among eastern European drivers but here they should follow our rules.
he was 3 times the limit so the ban is justified, if they let out on bail they would never see him again.
