Serious Incident - Shropshire Union Nr Chester 11/03/2015

[steven wilkinson]

so you think that the cops wouldn't just say 'blow in to this', whether they have the absolute right or not?

[furnessvale]

so you think that the cops wouldn't just say 'blow in to this', whether they have the absolute right or not?

And what would be the point of that?

 

A negative blow and the policeman can do nothing anyway. A positive blow followed by an arrest will render him liable for false arrest and imprisonment.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Starcoaster]

Does that not depend on whether or not the arrest was made on the basis of the test, or in support of the evidence gathering? She was likely going to be arrested for her actions drunk or sober, so I doubt the test was needed as an integral part of the arrest.

[furnessvale]

Does that not depend on whether or not the arrest was made on the basis of the test, or in support of the evidence gathering? She was likely going to be arrested for her actions drunk or sober, so I doubt the test was needed as an integral part of the arrest.

The whole point is that to administer a breath test to a boater under these circumstances is unlawful and therefore totally pointless.

 

Any arrest for her actions has to stand on its own merit without a breath test which, if administered, would at the very least muddy the waters and give the defence barrister a field day.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[nicknorman]

The whole point is that to administer a breath test to a boater under these circumstances is unlawful and therefore totally pointless.

 

Any arrest for her actions has to stand on its own merit without a breath test which, if administered, would at the very least muddy the waters and give the defence barrister a field day.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

Although presumably it could be suggested, rather than required, by the cop. That way it wouldn't be unlawful.

[furnessvale]

Although presumably it could be suggested, rather than required, by the cop. That way it wouldn't be unlawful.

OK. I give up! He could also suggest you go and climb Mount Everest for all the evidential value it would produce!

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[MisterDave]

OK. I give up! He could also suggest you go and climb Mount Everest for all the evidential value it would produce!

 

Police don't always do the logical thing. They're human, fallible, and some of them don't seem to know very much about the law at all.

 

I know of an incident where two girls leaving a pub car park on horseback were stopped and breathalysed. On revealing that they'd bought one pint each and shared it with the horses the officer on the scene radioed the station to find out if he needed to breathalyse the horses as well!

[Paul C]

Police don't always do the logical thing. They're human, fallible, and some of them don't seem to know very much about the law at all.

 

I know of an incident where two girls leaving a pub car park on horseback were stopped and breathalysed. On revealing that they'd bought one pint each and shared it with the horses the officer on the scene radioed the station to find out if he needed to breathalyse the horses as well!

 

Did the horse say yay or nay?

[nicknorman]

OK. I give up! He could also suggest you go and climb Mount Everest for all the evidential value it would produce!

 

George ex nb Alton retired

No need to get grumpy! You said that to administer a breath test would have been illegal. My point was that it would only be illegal if the cop forced the point. I made no comment about whether it would have been useful in court, although common sense would suggest that a knowledge of the intoxication level provided voluntarily could provide some corroborative evidence, unless this is specifically precluded in law?

[furnessvale]

No need to get grumpy! You said that to administer a breath test would have been illegal. My point was that it would only be illegal if the cop forced the point. I made no comment about whether it would have been useful in court, although common sense would suggest that a knowledge of the intoxication level provided voluntarily could provide some corroborative evidence, unless this is specifically precluded in law?

OK. To administer a breath test in these circumstances IS illegal. "Consent" or otherwise is totally immaterial. Any evidence obtained is totally inadmissible by the prosecution although the defence could introduce it as evidence that the alleged "consent" was in fact duress as part of a defence discrediting whatever other evidence the prosecution may have offered.

 

If that were not the case, the courts would be full of cases where the police were claiming "consent", when in fact the "consent" was by virtue of ignorance on the part of the accused, or by deliberate lying about the "consent" by the police.

 

Do not forget either, that the breathalyser is only an initial screening device which must be followed up by further breath or blood tests which form the actual evidence. If a PC really cocked up, administered a positive breath test, arrested and brought to the police station, one would hope that an alert desk sergeant would dearrest PDQ, and try to smooth things over before the law suits started flying.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[MtB]

 

Did the horse say yay or nay?

 

 

 

You'e missing the mane point, before this thread gallops away at a tangent...

[The Bearwood Boster]

I've just trotted in at the tail end of this topic...

[Paul C]

Some of these posts are in danger of being hoofed...

[Dyertribe]

Canter gree more!

[Ray T]

Has the stable door been bolted yet?

[Wanderer Vagabond]

OK. To administer a breath test in these circumstances IS illegal. "Consent" or otherwise is totally immaterial. Any evidence obtained is totally inadmissible by the prosecution although the defence could introduce it as evidence that the alleged "consent" was in fact duress as part of a defence discrediting whatever other evidence the prosecution may have offered.

 

If that were not the case, the courts would be full of cases where the police were claiming "consent", when in fact the "consent" was by virtue of ignorance on the part of the accused, or by deliberate lying about the "consent" by the police.

 

Do not forget either, that the breathalyser is only an initial screening device which must be followed up by further breath or blood tests which form the actual evidence. If a PC really cocked up, administered a positive breath test, arrested and brought to the police station, one would hope that an alert desk sergeant would dearrest PDQ, and try to smooth things over before the law suits started flying.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

Have to say I'm in total agreement with you re the breath test, utterly pointless since there is no legal limit (yet) on alcohol consumption on a boat being navigated for pleasure purposes on a canal. If drunkenness is considered to be an issue then the attending officer is still able to give evidence on the drunken state of the lady concerned since they don't breathalyse anyone arrested for being drunk and disorderly or drunk and incapable the conviction is based on the professional opinion of the officer. Since the drunkenness offence doesn't exist (yet) they would just be tilting at windmills.

 

Looking at the actual case I would suggest that making a big issue of the drunkenness may in fact undermine the more serious charge under Section 1(2)(b )of the Criminal Damage Act that they seem to be pursuing. If they are saying that she had the intent to endanger someone's life by causing Criminal Damage her barrister could counter this by claiming that she was so drunk that it was impossible for her to have any intent to do anything. They can then spend endless Court time discussing whether or not she was reckless in getting drunk before taking the helm (the second part of the definition) for which he will probably claim that a lot of people have been known to steer boats after having drunk alcohol without facing a reckless charge. I'll be interested to see what the final outcome is.

Edited June 4, 2015 by Wanderer Vagabond

[Wanderer Vagabond]

Duplicate post

Edited June 4, 2015 by Wanderer Vagabond

[ditchcrawler]

OK. To administer a breath test in these circumstances IS illegal. "Consent" or otherwise is totally immaterial. Any evidence obtained is totally inadmissible by the prosecution although the defence could introduce it as evidence that the alleged "consent" was in fact duress as part of a defence discrediting whatever other evidence the prosecution may have offered.

 

If that were not the case, the courts would be full of cases where the police were claiming "consent", when in fact the "consent" was by virtue of ignorance on the part of the accused, or by deliberate lying about the "consent" by the police.

 

Do not forget either, that the breathalyser is only an initial screening device which must be followed up by further breath or blood tests which form the actual evidence. If a PC really cocked up, administered a positive breath test, arrested and brought to the police station, one would hope that an alert desk sergeant would dearrest PDQ, and try to smooth things over before the law suits started flying.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

Didn't something similar happen at Braunston a few years ago?

[emlclcy]

 

I actually don't know if there is an alcohol limit for canals, and certainly don't want to re-awaken such a 140-page thread. Quite happy to be ignorant and start the mornings poking the stove, turning on the radio Classic FM, and have a sip of single malt and a cup of tea...

 

Classic FM ! outrageous !!! Radio 6 music PLEASE