Help with alleged DD
Discussion
A chap that does some work for me crashed his car, the Police arrived and arrested him for DD.
He has serious mental health issues and can prove this and was possibly having a psychotic episode.
They took his blood 6 hours later and they were under the limit, however a trace was found.
They claim he refused a breathalyser, he claims they didn't ask him to take one.
He has a Court date and wants to plead Not Guilty. He can't afford a solicitor.
I've suggested requesting the bodycam footage - can he do this an an individual representing himself?
Is there anything else he can do to proove his case?
Many thanks
He has serious mental health issues and can prove this and was possibly having a psychotic episode.
They took his blood 6 hours later and they were under the limit, however a trace was found.
They claim he refused a breathalyser, he claims they didn't ask him to take one.
He has a Court date and wants to plead Not Guilty. He can't afford a solicitor.
I've suggested requesting the bodycam footage - can he do this an an individual representing himself?
Is there anything else he can do to proove his case?
Many thanks
There's a number of factors to consider here and we definitely don't have the full story.
Firstly in relation to the blood reading for alcohol, they must have used a formula to calculate that back to the point of his arrest to show what his blood alcohol limit would have been at the time of arrest, to charge it wouldn't be enough to say "alcohol traces" were in his blood.
Secondly, all Police custody suites are covered extensively in CCTV with audio recording so there should be a recording of his whole time in custody, including his booking in procedure when he would have been asked to provide breath samples for the OPL process, they would not go straight to taking a blood sample unless there was a legitimate reason to do so, such as he for medical reasons could not provide a breath sample.
Body camera may be an option but it will depend on who did the OPL procedure at custody, if it was a custody officer I don't think they will be wearing body cam because the whole area is covered by cameras and sound recording anyway.
The likelihood is he either refused giving a reason why he couldn't or he did give a breath sample which was over the limit but within a certain range of the limit ( I don't recall the exact range) so they gave him the option of giving a blood sample for secondary analysis.
If he is going down the road of a medical episode as a defence he will have to find a solicitor and likely also a medical expert who will stand by the medical episode claim.
Firstly in relation to the blood reading for alcohol, they must have used a formula to calculate that back to the point of his arrest to show what his blood alcohol limit would have been at the time of arrest, to charge it wouldn't be enough to say "alcohol traces" were in his blood.
Secondly, all Police custody suites are covered extensively in CCTV with audio recording so there should be a recording of his whole time in custody, including his booking in procedure when he would have been asked to provide breath samples for the OPL process, they would not go straight to taking a blood sample unless there was a legitimate reason to do so, such as he for medical reasons could not provide a breath sample.
Body camera may be an option but it will depend on who did the OPL procedure at custody, if it was a custody officer I don't think they will be wearing body cam because the whole area is covered by cameras and sound recording anyway.
The likelihood is he either refused giving a reason why he couldn't or he did give a breath sample which was over the limit but within a certain range of the limit ( I don't recall the exact range) so they gave him the option of giving a blood sample for secondary analysis.
If he is going down the road of a medical episode as a defence he will have to find a solicitor and likely also a medical expert who will stand by the medical episode claim.
If he refused to comply with a breath test at the scene, he would be arrested and taken to the nearest police station with an evidential breath test machine.
He would then have to refuse to take the breath test at the police station to be charged with failing to provide.
Given bloods were taken, he's either not been able to provide two specimens of breath on the intoximeter of there's been issues with it, or he's provided a positive drug wipe for cannabis or cocaine.
The blood results generally take months to come back though so this was either a while ago or you've not got the full story.
Alternatively he was arrested for being unfit and taken to see a force medical examiner, (doctor) who will make a determination as to whether the person was under the influence of a drug or some other substance, and can request bloods be drawn for analysis.
Bloods cannot be taken without consent though and the medical practitioner taking them always ask, as do the police and it's all recorded. Had he been having an obvious psychotic episode, I'm doubtful a medical practitioner would have proceeded.
It may account for the delay though, if your friend needed to be taken to hospital first for assessment and then later being deemed fit to be taken to custody.
He would then have to refuse to take the breath test at the police station to be charged with failing to provide.
Given bloods were taken, he's either not been able to provide two specimens of breath on the intoximeter of there's been issues with it, or he's provided a positive drug wipe for cannabis or cocaine.
The blood results generally take months to come back though so this was either a while ago or you've not got the full story.
Alternatively he was arrested for being unfit and taken to see a force medical examiner, (doctor) who will make a determination as to whether the person was under the influence of a drug or some other substance, and can request bloods be drawn for analysis.
Bloods cannot be taken without consent though and the medical practitioner taking them always ask, as do the police and it's all recorded. Had he been having an obvious psychotic episode, I'm doubtful a medical practitioner would have proceeded.
It may account for the delay though, if your friend needed to be taken to hospital first for assessment and then later being deemed fit to be taken to custody.
Thank you Jamescrs and Fidzer for the responses.
Apparently he was taken to hospital first to be seen by a mental health specialist hence the delay. That person had to sign off that he was able to be interviewed by the Police.
He has told me it's his blood results which showed below the limit ( i don't know what level), the incident was on 20th July and the court case is 21st Oct which all feels very quick to me.
He claims he was never asked to take a breath test at the scene, what I'm trying to asecrtain is whether he can prove that via a recording or whether it's his word against the arresting officer, in which case I'd suggest he's f
ked.
From what Jamescr has said, they can reverse engineer the actual result to hypothesize what it would have been 6 hours earlier - I didn't realise they could do that.
I know he does have severe mental health issues as that's why I've tried to throw him work to give him purpose / keep him focussed on productive activities.
Apparently he was taken to hospital first to be seen by a mental health specialist hence the delay. That person had to sign off that he was able to be interviewed by the Police.
He has told me it's his blood results which showed below the limit ( i don't know what level), the incident was on 20th July and the court case is 21st Oct which all feels very quick to me.
He claims he was never asked to take a breath test at the scene, what I'm trying to asecrtain is whether he can prove that via a recording or whether it's his word against the arresting officer, in which case I'd suggest he's f
ked.From what Jamescr has said, they can reverse engineer the actual result to hypothesize what it would have been 6 hours earlier - I didn't realise they could do that.
I know he does have severe mental health issues as that's why I've tried to throw him work to give him purpose / keep him focussed on productive activities.
Seems to be in a Catch-22 situation.
1. He has issues that cause him to drive dangerously, so should have his licence reviewed possibly removing that licence
2. He has apparently driven in a dangerous way, so will have his licence removed if proven; his defence is he has issues that cause him to drive dangerously, see 1. above
While it may be useful for him to have a licence, it could be dangerous for him and others.
1. He has issues that cause him to drive dangerously, so should have his licence reviewed possibly removing that licence
2. He has apparently driven in a dangerous way, so will have his licence removed if proven; his defence is he has issues that cause him to drive dangerously, see 1. above
While it may be useful for him to have a licence, it could be dangerous for him and others.
2020vision said:
Seems to be in a Catch-22 situation.
1. He has issues that cause him to drive dangerously, so should have his licence reviewed possibly removing that licence
2. He has apparently driven in a dangerous way, so will have his licence removed if proven; his defence is he has issues that cause him to drive dangerously, see 1. above
While it may be useful for him to have a licence, it could be dangerous for him and others.
It's a fair point and maybe I'm being too empathetic, I just know losing his licence means losing his work which will finish him off1. He has issues that cause him to drive dangerously, so should have his licence reviewed possibly removing that licence
2. He has apparently driven in a dangerous way, so will have his licence removed if proven; his defence is he has issues that cause him to drive dangerously, see 1. above
While it may be useful for him to have a licence, it could be dangerous for him and others.
foliedouce said:
2020vision said:
Seems to be in a Catch-22 situation.
1. He has issues that cause him to drive dangerously, so should have his licence reviewed possibly removing that licence
2. He has apparently driven in a dangerous way, so will have his licence removed if proven; his defence is he has issues that cause him to drive dangerously, see 1. above
While it may be useful for him to have a licence, it could be dangerous for him and others.
It's a fair point and maybe I'm being too empathetic, I just know losing his licence means losing his work which will finish him off1. He has issues that cause him to drive dangerously, so should have his licence reviewed possibly removing that licence
2. He has apparently driven in a dangerous way, so will have his licence removed if proven; his defence is he has issues that cause him to drive dangerously, see 1. above
While it may be useful for him to have a licence, it could be dangerous for him and others.
Red9zero said:
foliedouce said:
2020vision said:
Seems to be in a Catch-22 situation.
1. He has issues that cause him to drive dangerously, so should have his licence reviewed possibly removing that licence
2. He has apparently driven in a dangerous way, so will have his licence removed if proven; his defence is he has issues that cause him to drive dangerously, see 1. above
While it may be useful for him to have a licence, it could be dangerous for him and others.
It's a fair point and maybe I'm being too empathetic, I just know losing his licence means losing his work which will finish him off1. He has issues that cause him to drive dangerously, so should have his licence reviewed possibly removing that licence
2. He has apparently driven in a dangerous way, so will have his licence removed if proven; his defence is he has issues that cause him to drive dangerously, see 1. above
While it may be useful for him to have a licence, it could be dangerous for him and others.
It is a concern for the poor chap in the OP's post but the risk is obvious. This sort of situation is the only application I can see for a self-driving car.
I think you or your friend need proper legal and medical advice.
I've been told that 'driving under the influence' does not necessarily require your blood alcohol level to be above the limit.
Not sure that's true in the UK.
Some people have a low tolerance for alcohol.
Some people with some mental and/neurological illnesses have reduced tolerance to alcohol.
Some people should never drink, much less drink at all and drive.
If someone is unwell to the point they've crashed their car, will they be a reliable witness as to whether they were offered a breath test?
If someone has crashed due to being unfit to drive, how much does it matter if that was due to being over the limit?
Someone needs help well beyond avoiding a DD conviction.
I've been told that 'driving under the influence' does not necessarily require your blood alcohol level to be above the limit.
Not sure that's true in the UK.
Some people have a low tolerance for alcohol.
Some people with some mental and/neurological illnesses have reduced tolerance to alcohol.
Some people should never drink, much less drink at all and drive.
If someone is unwell to the point they've crashed their car, will they be a reliable witness as to whether they were offered a breath test?
If someone has crashed due to being unfit to drive, how much does it matter if that was due to being over the limit?
Someone needs help well beyond avoiding a DD conviction.
foliedouce said:
My understanding is DUI
The isn't an offence called DUI in the UK. The options would be: Driving while over the proscribed alcohol concentration (requires evidence of your actual alcohol level);
Driving while unfit through drink or drugs (requires evidence of drunkenness but not necessarily a breath/blood test); or
Failure to provide a breath or blood sample without reasonable excuse
The different offences requiring different types of evidence to convict (or defend)
foliedouce said:
Thank you Jamescrs and Fidzer for the responses.
Apparently he was taken to hospital first to be seen by a mental health specialist hence the delay. That person had to sign off that he was able to be interviewed by the Police.
He has told me it's his blood results which showed below the limit ( i don't know what level), the incident was on 20th July and the court case is 21st Oct which all feels very quick to me.
He claims he was never asked to take a breath test at the scene, what I'm trying to asecrtain is whether he can prove that via a recording or whether it's his word against the arresting officer, in which case I'd suggest he's fked.
From what Jamescr has said, they can reverse engineer the actual result to hypothesize what it would have been 6 hours earlier - I didn't realise they could do that.
I know he does have severe mental health issues as that's why I've tried to throw him work to give him purpose / keep him focussed on productive activities.
Don’t get too hung up on the breath test at the scene aspect, that test is used more as an indication of someone being over the limit to drive than an absolute for prosecution. Apparently he was taken to hospital first to be seen by a mental health specialist hence the delay. That person had to sign off that he was able to be interviewed by the Police.
He has told me it's his blood results which showed below the limit ( i don't know what level), the incident was on 20th July and the court case is 21st Oct which all feels very quick to me.
He claims he was never asked to take a breath test at the scene, what I'm trying to asecrtain is whether he can prove that via a recording or whether it's his word against the arresting officer, in which case I'd suggest he's f
ked.From what Jamescr has said, they can reverse engineer the actual result to hypothesize what it would have been 6 hours earlier - I didn't realise they could do that.
I know he does have severe mental health issues as that's why I've tried to throw him work to give him purpose / keep him focussed on productive activities.
To give a personal example many years ago I was involved in a Road Accident one evening between Christmas and New Year and was breathalysed in the back of a Police car, no issue because I was completely clear so I blew 0.
If I had blown over the officer would still have had to take me to a Police Station to do an evidential breath test on a properly calibrated evidential testing machine and if there is have blown under I would have been released.
Don’t get too hung up on trying to get body worn video for a roadside breath test or lack of as it won’t assist any defence in this circumstances.
Oceanrower said:
Shaw Tarse said:
foliedouce said:
kestral said:
What offence has he been summonsed for?
My understanding is DUIgazza285 said:
Oceanrower said:
Shaw Tarse said:
foliedouce said:
kestral said:
What offence has he been summonsed for?
My understanding is DUIOP - my money is it's all on CCTV from the custody suite and on body worn video too.
Sounds like he shouldn't be driving to be honest
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff