|
Not sure if anyone can offer any advice but here goes anyway. My brother was pulled for Drink driving last night he was over the limit at 84mg. He's never done anything wrong in his life and at the moment is quite upset. He's got to appear in court on Wednesday and he's got lots of things running through his head. Does anyone know what he is looking at? I've said that at worst theu will take his licence of him for 12 months and he'll probably get a fine......?
|
|
12 Months is the minimum, he is looking at about 25 months with a possible reduction of 6 months if he takes a rehabilitation programme. Plus a community sentance and court costs.
|
He is also looking at difficulty getting reinsured at the end of his ban and/or higher premiums for cover and difficulty hiring cars for a long time in the future; the latter may not bother him but it is is a possible outcome.
|
|
As a police officer, he will be looking at least 2 years, . It will have a major affect on his insurance in the future and he will also have a criminal record which will have to be declared when applying for jobs etc.
|
Further to beast's post, he will also actually be unable to get into USA, even as a tourist. Mind you with the grief and rudeness reported at immigartion, post 9/11, this may not be a great loss to him. If he needs to travel there on business it will be a very major problem
|
|
2 year ban, 100 hours community service (painting school fencing on a crisp sunday morning), should of refused a breath test still would of incurred a ban (prob 12 months) but couldnt be proved drunk driving
|
|
|
|
Just to be clear, was your brother tested at 84 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 ml of breath, or 84 milligrammes per 100 ml of blood? The first one is over double the limit, the second only just over.
Is he a police officer as Beast suggests - I can't see that in your original post?
|
I was reading that Beast is a Police Officer. As an Officer myself, he deserves everything he gets! There is absolutely no excuse for it whatsoever.
If the reading is breath, two year ban is a distinct possibility.
|
"He's never done anything wrong in his life"
and statiscally very unlucky to be caught the first time he did if you know what I mean.
|
As the OP was in the small hours of this morning (Sunday) it isn't likely to be blood is it? Tests aren't done that quickly so it is probably breath and very high at that.
|
|
|
"He's never done anything wrong in his life" and statiscally very unlucky to be caught the first time he did if you know what I mean.
I think you mean that the chances are he's done plenty of things wrong, just never been caught before. But that may be me putting my thoughts into your words.
I have a lot of trouble feeling any sympathy for someone willing to drink and drive.
|
|
Bazza - I was prejudging that makes me a bad person - sorry. (I just based my opinion on 27 years in the trade !).
|
|
No need to apologise to me! My post may not have been clear. I wasn't sure that was what you meant, but it's definitely what I was thinking myself!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your brother was lucky that he did not run over and kill some-one. That would have upset him more !!!. I myself love a good drink, but NEVER EVER mix it with driving. Cheers, Graham.
|
|
Friends son dealt with on Wed for this offence (31/2 times over) - told he was to expect a custodial sentence but because of the "prison Crisis" he recieved : 30month ban, (reduced 6months if takes a drink rehab couse) 12months probation/community rehab, 3 months tagged home curfew (fri/sat only 7pm-7am) £100 fine/costs, and must resit test after all that, - He admits he got off lightly - he was dreading prison! but believed he was going to be gone.
|
Friend's daughter recently sentenced for just on twice limit... in the dark ages, this would have been a 12 month ban, and £250 fine.
Now, of course, we're much more enlightened, so she received 18 months ban.
(Oh, reduced by 3 months for early guilty plea and a further 3 months if she attends a drink awareness course.) and a £100 fine.
How much does the course cost? £150.
Yes, we've certainly moved the sentencing game on in recent years... this is Blair's Criminal Justice reform in action folks!
Doh!
Neil
|
Yes, we've certainly moved the sentencing game on in recent years... this is Blair's Criminal Justice reform in action folks!
I'm confused. Would you have wanted the punishments to be more or less severe?
|
>> >> Yes, we've certainly moved the sentencing game on in recent years... >> this is Blair's Criminal Justice reform in action folks! >> I'm confused. Would you have wanted the punishments to be more or less severe?
I haven't a view either way - I just notice that after much farago and faradiddle, initiatives and such, much trumpeting and posturing, the net result is ... well, you get the picture.
There's been a Criminal Justice Bill of some description for every year of the Blair government - one has to ask why!
|
|
|
|
Reading the various contributions, the list of consequences to date appears to be, in no specific order :-
I have added a few possibilities
1.A ban. -12 Months is the minimum up to 30 months
2. A rehabilitation programme.
3. A community sentance
4. Court costs.
5. Insurance -higher premiums for cover (plus I assume significantly less choice of companies?)
...Insurance cancelled
6. Difficulty hiring cars for a long time in the future
7. A criminal record which will have to be declared when applying for jobs etc.
8. Unable to get into USA, even as a tourist.
9. Sort out alternative transport to job, shops, schools, old folks, friends, parties etc.etc.etc.
10. Sell the car and unable to demo it?
......If retained - getting a MoT etc
11. Resit test
12 Tagged
13 Prison
Are there any more to add to the list?
Can anyone give specific examples of the total extra cost in insurance over say 10 years?
I have never seen any such list used to ram home the consequences of drink driving even as in this case you have been stopped and not caused an accident.
IMO a similar list would make a few more think hard about the true impact.
|
"IMO a similar list would make a few more think hard about the true impact."
Quite. It would probably save some peope from themselves. Increasing the punishment is pointless (no pun intended) unless it is well publicised. I had no idea that the punishment was so severe (not that the crime isn't severe).
|
Quite. It would probably save some peope from themselves. Increasing the punishment is pointless (no pun intended) unless it is well publicised.>
It's a pity that a sensible driving topic can't be included occasionally in 'Top Gear'. It would really grab folks' attention if JC straightened his face, stopped the buffoonery for a moment and said - straight into camera - 'Are you aware of the consequences for drink driving these days? - well, just take a look at this list'.
|
|
|
|
8. Unable to get into USA, even as a tourist.
I realise that you're repeating a comment made earlier, but that's a misnoma - you only have a problem getting into the US if the crime involved 'moral turpitude', and the first driving offence that's considered to involve moral turpitude is driving while banned.
|
BP. I think it is the case that speeding, parking, minor construction and use offences are OK. Driving under the influence of drink or drugs is regarded as "Moral turpitude". I may hinge on whether the penalty was given by magistrates or a judge. One of the legal eagles will probably swoop in shortly!
|
Short answer: unquestionably disqualification, probably 18 - 24 months - if he is contrite he should be able to get a 25% reduction for taking the DASH course.
A fine, dependent somewhat on his income and the sentencing Bench, but around £200 + costs of whatever is traditional in that court.
He's on the borderline for where a community penalty would be imposed, and as a first offence I would be surprised to see one but I couldn't competely rule it out.
I presume you mean 84 microgrammes in breath (more than twice the limit), rather than 84 milligrammes in blood - which is only very slightly over but the blood test wouldn't have come back this quickly. If it were 84mg in blood then it'd be a 12-month ban with a 25% reduction for the DASH course and a fine of £100 - £150.
If he's caught driving during the period of disqualification then a community penalty is very likely and imprisonment becomes a distinct possibility from the second offence on (althoguh theoretically avaialble from the first occasion of DWD).
If he feels he wants to get a lawyer to plead his case then by all means he can but it's a personal choice rather than an absolute necessity in this sort of situation as the Magistrates have very little discretion and even less inclination to use it.
|
84 with breath is getting into the 'driving whilst unfit' (section 4) territory.... as opposed to 'driving with excess alcohol' (section 5)
if a police doctor has certified 'unfit' having been through a procedure to establish this....then the penalty would be likely to be higher
|
|
|
|
Just found a UK firm offering to help with Visa applications for those with convictions. You can't get in on the Visa Waiver Programme with convictions but have to apply for a visa.
I also found this on a discussion site; it shows what can happen but it is, after all only discussion and opinion!
I am travelling to the US fairly soon. I have minor (cannabis) drug
>convictions (2) from about 30 years ago. Options:
>1. Check the no convictions box on the form
>2. Check the convictions box on the form
You don't really even have that choice anymore - and I certainly
wouldn't reccommend travelling without an actual visa, or at the
minimum checking if you require one.
If you're from a Visa Waiver Program country and have a criminal
record, you can no longer enter under the VWP program.
You *must* actually apply for a visitor Visa and attend interviews
and background checks if needed through the U.S.
Consulate/Embassy beforehand.
It's not even worth trying to cheat the system as their background
database checks are *extremely* thorough these days.
Through my job experiences, I can give you umpteen dozen
examples of denied entry - including a 76 year old Granny who
was denied *transit* (not even entering, just in transit) the USA at
the inspection check and sent straight back on the next flight to
where she had come from. She had failed to declare a very minor
conviction some 20+ years ago. I can also give umpteen
examples of denied visa applications due to criminal history
as well.
|
>>She had failed to declare a very minor conviction some 20+ years ago.
AS, with the greatest of respect, I don't think so.
She was in transit so not in the US for long so they didn't have time for a manual check, only computerised. What background check did they use which picked up a 20 year old offence for which she was not imprisioned which would have occurred at a time when court records were not computerised nor have been computerised since [since you said it was minor and presumably long spent] ?
I think someone has either made it up or not told you the whole story.
|
I totally agree.
I am sick to death of the urban myths that have sprung up on this subject.
To check up on a person's criminal record is not easy - a request has to be put to the UK authorites and there must be justification.
Secondly to find out if anyone has a minor conviction from 20 years ago is not easy ? ask any of the police on this site
I posted the below on the 'I have a question' thread.
"May I claim, with all due modesty, to be something of an expert on this subject!!
Firstly you do not normally need to get a Visa to enter the USA, you can enter for a period of up to 90 days on a Visa Waiver.
The Visa Waiver application form(I-94W) which you are given at the airport contains one question relevant to this discussion.(all in one convoluted sentence)
"have you ever been arrested of convicted for an offense(sic) or crime involving moral turpitude or a violation related to a controlled substance; or been arrested or convicted for two or more offenses for which the aggregate sentence to confinement was 5 years or more; or been a controlled substance trafficker; or are you seeking entry to engage in criminal or immoral activities?"
That raises the question ?"what is an offense involving moral turpitude?" Well there is no definitive answer to that question. However the precedents set by USA courts are for very serious charges and specifically exclude DUI(Driving under Influence) even for the third time in most legal sites.
However if you want further guidance you can look up the various USA immigration websites and you will be no wiser!
If you ring the USA embassy in London(at £1.50 a min) they will not discuss this matter and tell you to come for an interview.
Now the problem. If you look up the US Embassy website for UK it clearly states if you have ever been arrested ? for any reason, even if not charged of found not guilty, you are ineligible to enter on a Visa waiver.
However this exact same waiver form(in English) is used by many Nationalities and if you read the various websites for those Nations it is often not so stringent on the arrest condition.
The above is factual. Now for conjecture!
It is the clear intent of the USA to exclude those with a serious criminal record. If a 'simple' arrest excluded you from using a waiver, why the convoluted question on the form?(moral turpitude 5 years confinement etc) A simple "have you ever been arrested?" would suffice.
Personally with an arrest for drink driving I would with a clear conscience feel able to answer No to the relevant question on the I-94W and use the visa waiver. I know that many people do so.
However if you don't wish to take that chance then you can apply to the US Embassy for a visitors Visa. This involves obtaining a memorandum of conviction from the court, an interview in London(or Belfast), payment of a fee.
Anecdotal evidence suggests it is not normal to refuse a Visa for a single drink driving conviction.
All in all the whole situation is a total mess."
|
"have you ever been arrested of convicted for an offense(sic) or crime involving moral turpitude"
Does that mean that if Blair is arrested by the police in the cash for honours business (as was the case for one or more of his associates) then he will not be allowed to go visit his big mate George back in the good 'ol' US of A?
|
|
|
|
>>She had failed to declare a very minor conviction some 20+ years ago. AS, with the greatest of respect, I don't think so.
Of course, she may have just cracked under questioning!
My view seems very similar to Cardew's (indeed a lot of what he's written is almost word for word what I've posted in the past), however it is crucial for your party to keep their mouths shut while going through Immigration in the US. If you're with some gobby family members and one of them shouts out 'what about that time you got arrested' then you might be in for a tough time. Of course, anything drugs related is a complete no no.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On the insurance side: after five years (from the offence) it will make no difference whatsoever.
The Rehabiltation of Offenders Act allows that the offence will not have to be declared after five years have passed.
This is why insurers are only allowed ask 'if you have any convictions in the last five years'
Hiring a car will be a problem for 11 years (the endorsement can then be removed from your licence)
Hire companies will usually allow one conviction if it was more than five years ago but this varies between companies esp if it is a DR offence.
Unlike insurance companies, who are not allowed ask about a drink/drive offence more than five years ago, a hire company will usually ask to see your licence (both parts) thus revealing the endorsement.
|
On the insurance side: after five years (from the offence) it will make no difference whatsoever.....etc
Jemima Can , Are you sure about that? I would have thought that insurance companies are allowed to ask whatever questions they want, and to turn down any business they don't want for whatever reason.
--
|
s.4 (1) Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974:
Subject to sections 7 and 8 below, a person who has become a rehabilitated person for the purposes of this Act in respect of a conviction shall be treated for all purposes in law as a person who has not committed or been charged with or prosecuted for or convicted of or sentenced for the offence or offences which were the subject of that conviction
s.7 is a list of exemptions, e.g., payment of fines, care proceedings, criminal proceedings, etc. Insurance isn't on that list.
Under s.5 of the Act, if you are fined or given a community order, the rehabilitation period is five years for an adult - which is why insurance companies generally don't ask for older convictions (and if they did, the common law duty of utmost good faith would be overruled by the statute anyway).
|
|
|
Hi Robin Reliant
Positive - The offence is deemed 'spent' after five years - they won't ask because they are not allowed to ask for details of 'spent' convictions (in this circumstance) - there is no obligation to tell them and no offence is committed by not telling them
An insurance company cannot offer less favourable terms to a driver whose offence is 'spent'
|
www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombuds...m
Sorry - don't know how to do that make links smaller thing
|
|
|
|
|
|
I should have said though, that obviously, even if you didn't drive before the five years was up, your NCD would have expired, so it would be like driving as a first-timer again.
On the sentence side, I would have though a 24month ban and a fine of less than £500 is most likely.
Bring licence to court to hand over, obviously don't bring car.
|
"Bring licence to court to hand over, obviously don't bring car"
Ha Ha !
but you'd be surprised how many do !
|
I bet the old bill love it when someone comes to court in a car & then gets disqualified... I bet it's a trick of the trade to wait & watch what they do after they leave the courtroom!!
|
|
|
Might be an opportunity for 'a nice little earner'!
"Take it off your hands Sir?".....
|
What is the penalty for driving whilst incompetent? Seems a large % of the UK drivers fit the bill far too well!
MD
|
Agree with Martin Devon about driving whilst incompetent!
Reading this thread has got me seriously puzzled about the things I did in my yoof. In the late '50s it was the Sunday evening ritual for the West London Male Voice Choir to hold their weekly sing-along at the Prospect of Whitby off Cable St. That closed at 10 so we would all head off to the Grenadier near Hyde Park Corner which closed at 10:30. On a good evening with a clear run that would give us an extra 15 minutes drinking time! ....and no-one ever had a crash! Ever!
The beer was no weaker, even at 2/- a pint, so were we just better drivers in those far-off days?
This is where I need young Lud's opinion (vbg)!
--
e Prof
|
What does vbg mean eProf?
I've been trying to avoid pointing out to some of these people that drink driving is still legal in this country thank God. I knew if I did they'd think I was advocating drunken mayhem on the roads. Now, thanks to you, they will.
They ought to try living in Sweden before trying to make this place more like it.
Never been there myself but I'm sure I wouldn't want to move there for good, nice though I'm sure it is in many ways.
Cheers, by the way.
|
What does vbg mean eProf? - very big grin!
"I've been trying to avoid pointing out to some of these people that drink driving is still legal in this country thank God. I knew if I did they'd think I was advocating drunken mayhem on the roads. Now, thanks to you, they will".
Oh! There is enough mayhem on the roads now without adding ethanol to the mix. Judging by the average standard of driving today, even reading the labels on the bottles could be enough to to destroy what little ability they have left.
Remember, too, that I was talking about nearly fifty years ago when the world was a very different place. It was a great time to be young and to have learnt about life in those years has enabled me to grow old gracelessly.
Incidentally, I don't drink any more which is rather nice!
Thank you for your correction, Lud!
--
e Prof
|
|
I guess there was much less traffic in those days and cars were far less powerful. It is also possible that the proportion of drink drivers having an accident was high, but that you simply did not come across one. I would guess that most drink drivers do not have an accident, and that is what lulls them into continuing. It's a bit like going round a corner at high speed. Sooner or later you will drive into a stationary object that you do not see until it is too late.
|
|
|
|
|
|
