Drink Driving Medical

[Rob S]

DPP v Lonsdale, DPP v Fountain and DPP v Furby. Three more sent back to the magistrates by the appeal court with a direction to convict.

 

McMahon v CPS, Martiner v DPP, Pattison v DPP and Oladimeji v DPP. Convicted at magistrates court, appealed to Court of Appeal and appeal dismissed. Conviction to stand.

 

DPP v Grundy. Appeal by prosecution to the High Court. Appeal allowed, sent back to magistrates with direction to rehear the case.

[danny_kiernan]

Guilty as charged, I did just use their list (but the book version, I didn't know there was an online version), via skimming through as I haven't got the time to look it up in detail at the moment.

 

I notice you only quote negative cases Rob S, do you have some other agenda? A person who was impartial would post details of all cases, the first one stated was R v Lennard, which was a landmark case at the time (and still is), how come you haven't expanded on that case?

 

I eagerly await your inflammatory remarks - I may not reply straight away however as I am really busy at the moment.

 

Kind Regards

 

Dani

[danny_kiernan]

If some-one genuinely cannot give a breath test for "medical reasons" and they knew they were clear, surely these people would be begging the police for a blood test (which is more accurate anyway). The fact they do nothing proves guilt in my eyes.

 

Quite true, however it's not just medical reasons, there is 'reasonable excuse' in court - at the time of the breath test, the only question the police ave to ask is, are there any medical reasons, why you cannot provide a specimen of breath. If they asked the question, without the 'medical' bit attached - it might avoid wasting the courts time.

 

A lot of people, take 'medical reasons' to mean a physical reason, why they canot take the test, so will anser no.

 

Heres a couple of examples to ponder:

 

1: A person with OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder) whether diagnosed or undiagnosed, refuses a breath test (this did happen in the US btw), they are asked if there are any medical reasons why they refuse, they answer no, as the reason they won't give a test is because the device is not clean, not because of a medical reason (in their eyes, OCD is a psychological problem, not a medical one).

 

2. A person receives a closed head injury (as in no cut/bruising visible) in a car crash, when they are asked any question, they say 'no' due to a head injury effect - known as Automatism, which basically means the brain is working, but nobody is at the controls - so all they will say is no.

 

Kind Regards

 

Dani

[danny_kiernan]

Rob s has hit the nail on the head yet again Dani. Your arguments just simply never stack up.

 

The internet is an odd communication medium (as it is static), sometimes things will be taken out of context, when they are not meant that way.

 

If you wish to have a conversation about any of the posts (this goes for barracad and Rob S too) you can get me on my hotmail account, or even PM me and I will give you my phone number and/or address and I am quite happy to go through any points in person.

 

 

Dani

[Rob S]

I notice you only quote negative cases Rob S, do you have some other agenda? A person who was impartial would post details of all cases, the first one stated was R v Lennard, which was a landmark case at the time (and still is), how come you haven't expanded on that case?

 

Danny, you put on a list of 40 cases which you said "the list of cases where this has been proved is as follows:" You tried to put across to CAG members that all the cases you listed were ones where the accused had won their case because they had been able to cite a medical or other reason. With very little work, and without going through every case, I was able to find the 9 cases above where either the accused appealed and lost, the prosecution appealed and the appeal court remitted it back to the magistrates court with a direction to convict or it was sent back to the magistrates court for a rehearing of the case. That's almost 25% of the cases you listed where the result is not as you claimed. We could have forgiven the odd case, but not 25%! (I'm sure the number would increase if all the cases were researched).

 

Let's hope you haven't deliberately put up the list knowing full well that many of the cases listed were ones where either the accuseds appeal failed or the prosecution were successful in appealing against a magistrates decision. We wouldn't want that sort of deception and lies appearing within CAG and damaging the credibility of the group.

 

R V Lennard was indeed a landmark case, with Justice Lawton stating "No excuse can be adjudged reasonable unless (the motorist) is physically or mentally unable to provide it or the provision of the specimen would entail a substantial risk to his health". But Lennard's reason for refusing a breath test was that he had consumed alcohol after the incident and he believed that was a reasonable excuse for not having to provide. I have not been able to find the outcome of Lennard's appeal, but certainly the case did lay down what could be defined as a reasonable excuse for not providing a specimen.

 

 

I eagerly await your inflammatory remarks - I may not reply straight away however as I am really busy at the moment.

 

How do you define remarks as inflammatory? Would it be any remarks that undermine your credibility, because they demolish your arguments, or remarks that show up your lame attempts at back peddling? If you want to engage in a reasoned debate on this issue Danny you should get your facts right in the first instance.

[Rob S]

Heres a couple of examples to ponder:

 

1: A person with OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder) whether diagnosed or undiagnosed, refuses a breath test (this did happen in the US btw),

 

US law is different to UK law so this example is irrelevant.

[danny_kiernan]

US law is different to UK law so this example is irrelevant.

 

Yes they are different, but a person with OCD is NOT different in the UK.

 

The same rule applies.

 

 

Dani

[Rob S]

The cases which were put across, were all the cases, which related to this matter, regardless if they won or not.

 

 

But you didn't make that clear at the time. You presented them in a manner which suggested that they were cases that had been won by the accused.

[jailbird]

'Failure to provide' is a seperate offence so therefore does not affect your insurance..........hence the wide use of it ! If you have driven a car under the influence you should have the balls to carry the charge. DD KILLS INOCENT PEOPLE.

[danny_kiernan]

But you didn't make that clear at the time. You presented them in a manner which suggested that they were cases that had been won by the accused.

 

At Last - light dawns - perhaps you should read the posts properly, before making a comment? At no time did I say that they had all won.

 

I'm still waiting for my phonecall btw, or is it 'awk awk awk'

[Rob S]

At Last - light dawns - perhaps you should read the posts properly, before making a comment? At no time did I say that they had all won.

 

 

And at no time did you say they had been lost either.

[dar£n]

Danny,

Can you calm down a little, this is meant to be a forum where people discuss topics - not get into slanging matches with each other and to be honest this thread seems to be getting out of hand...

 

Yes you have a right to post [within reason] but please keep within the limits that are expected, mutual respect...

 

You cant expect EVERYONE to share your views and they also have their right to view their opinions, but please refrain from your personal comments.

 

Also, if a member does not wish to contact you outside this forum, this is their choice and does not reflect on their ability to argue or any other aspect of their personal abilities.

 

Please take a deep breath and relax before posting....thank you.

[danny_kiernan]

I'm calm Dar£n, just if someone is soo effusive about their views, I like to give them a chance to elaborate in person

[Chesterexpress]

The internet is an odd communication medium (as it is static), sometimes things will be taken out of context, when they are not meant that way.

 

If you wish to have a conversation about any of the posts (this goes for barracad and Rob S too) you can get me on my hotmail account, or even PM me and I will give you my phone number and/or address and I am quite happy to go through any points in person.

 

 

Dani

 

Dani boy, I received your pm with phone number etc. However I have better things to do with my time than waste it on calling you. Now if you wish to call me names like you did Rob_s then feel free to do so. Sticks and stones etc.

[danny_kiernan]

Dani boy, I received your pm with phone number etc. However I have better things to do with my time than waste it on calling you. Now if you wish to call me names like you did Rob_s then feel free to do so. Sticks and stones etc.

 

Did you mean by saying "awk,awk,awk"?

That is meant to be a chicken sound as he and you appear to be.

 

You both appear to take the stance, that you are completely in the right and anyone who argues with you is wrong.

 

I try not to take that stance (however I can do when vexed), I try to see from all angles.

 

My final words are 'Adepto nonnullus testis'

 

 

Dani

[Chesterexpress]

Dani, please grow up, you are sounding more foolish with every post you make and to be honest I thought your silence the past couple of days meant we had got rid of you for good. Please explain what good it would be phoning you? You are like lots of others on forums, good to hide behind a keyboard and sometimes brave enough to talk on a mobile. I suppose in your eyes that makes you mr big, however to most people it just makes you look incredibly stupid...

[danny_kiernan]

This is interesting

 

one moment you say this:

 

Dani, please grow up, you are sounding more foolish with every post you make and to be honest I thought your silence the past couple of days meant we had got rid of you for good. Please explain what good it would be phoning you?

 

Then you say this:

 

You are like lots of others on forums, good to hide behind a keyboard and sometimes brave enough to talk on a mobile. I suppose in your eyes that makes you mr big, however to most people it just makes you look incredibly stupid...

 

I have the full courage of my convictions - so am PM'ing my address and landline number, you are the one hiding behind a keyboard.

 

the latin quote from my previous reply still applies.

 

Dani

[barracad]

Stupid.

Boring.

Pointless.

Closed.