Drink Driving Medical

[danny_kiernan]

Originally Posted by Rob S

No mention of refusal to provide whatsoever. Now that your opinions have been shot down in flames I see you are rowing for shore. Unfortunately for you, your original comments in post 4 are still on display for all to see.

As illustrated by a quote from post 4:

Originally Posted by danny_kiernan

So why can you saying 'no' to a breath test result in an immediate ban and possibly other penalties. Surely can't the police just get a forced blood test like they do with drugs?

In most languages 'no' means a refusal, I don't quite get where your confusion lies?

Also in the form MG/DD/A, it clearly states:

I require you to provide two specimens of breath for analysis by means of an
approved device. The specimen with the lower proportion of alcohol in your
breath may be used as evidence and the other will be disregarded. I warn you
that failure to provide either of these specimens will render you liable to

prosecution. Do you agree to provide two specimens of breath for analysis?

This does cover refusal to provide.

Originally Posted by Rob S

No it's not, it's an offence. It has been for a very long time. If someone is stupid enough to fail to provide then they deserve all they get.

I'd love to know how you define someone as 'stupid' when they are unable to or refuse to provide a specimen, due to medical reasons, reasonable excuse etc, the list of cases where this has been proved is as follows:

R v Lennard, Woolman v Lenton, DPP v Boden, DPP v Judge,DPP v Daley, DPP v Curtis, DPP v Szarzynski, DPP v Crofton, DPP v Hammond, DPP v Furby, Falzarano v DPP, DPP v Lonsdale, McMahon v CPS, Martiner v DPP, DPP v Mukandiwa, Pattison v DPP, Oladimeji v DPP,Beck v Sager, McGrath v Vipas, Dawes v Taylor, Spalding v Paine, Foster v Bentley, Kemp v Chief Constable of Kent, Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset v O’Brien, DPP v Fountain, Neale v DPP, Smith (Nicholas Paul) v DPP, Dickinson v DPP, DPP v Beech, DPP v Pearman, De Freitas v DPP, DPP v Brodzky, DPP v Coyle, DPP v Meller, DPP v Grundy,Grady v Pollard, DPP v Eddowes, DPP v Ambrose, DPP v Comber, DPP v Simpson (Ian William)

There are lots more - but that list should keep you busy for a while.

Kind Regards

Dani

[Rob S]

Originally Posted by danny_kiernan

I'd love to know how you define someone as 'stupid' when they are unable to or refuse to provide a specimen,
Dani

Moving the goal posts again Danny. To save you the bother of going back to your original post in this thread, let me remind you of what you said:-

"So why can you saying 'no' to a breath test result in an immediate ban and possibly other penalties."

If someone says "No" to a breath test without good reason then they are stupid and deserve everything that gets thrown at them.

Now that you realise the folly of what you said in post 4 of this thread you move to attempt a damage limitation exercise, but unfortunately your credibility has already taken another knock. You can back peddle as much as you like and start to mention cases where people had medical issues for not being able to provide, but the majority will see your post above in it's proper light.................... ....an attempt by you to save face.

[make them aktiv runners]

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.

I know drivers who have gone for the higher license types (HGV/LGV) while having severe alcohol dependency. Believe it or not at least one had reference to drink problems in not too distantly past medical history and the doctor gave him a clean bill of health. Just shows how little the DVLA medical goes in some circumstances.....

[Chesterexpress]

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

[Rob S]

Originally Posted by danny_kiernan

the list of cases where this has been proved is as follows:

R v Lennard, Woolman v Lenton, DPP v Boden, DPP v Judge,DPP v Daley, DPP v Curtis, DPP v Szarzynski, DPP v Crofton, DPP v Hammond, DPP v Furby, Falzarano v DPP, DPP v Lonsdale, McMahon v CPS, Martiner v DPP, DPP v Mukandiwa, Pattison v DPP, Oladimeji v DPP,Beck v Sager, McGrath v Vipas, Dawes v Taylor, Spalding v Paine, Foster v Bentley, Kemp v Chief Constable of Kent, Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset v O’Brien, DPP v Fountain, Neale v DPP, Smith (Nicholas Paul) v DPP, Dickinson v DPP, DPP v Beech, DPP v Pearman, De Freitas v DPP, DPP v Brodzky, DPP v Coyle, DPP v Meller, DPP v Grundy,Grady v Pollard, DPP v Eddowes, DPP v Ambrose, DPP v Comber, DPP v Simpson (Ian William)

Tell me Danni, did you read through all the above cases or did you just get the list from the Callow Publishing website and just cut and paste the cases? I only ask because if you go to their site:-

Drink Drive Case Notes by P M Callow with Lion Laboratories contents

And then look under Chapter 5 you will see that your list corresponds with the exact same list on the above site. I suspect that you have just put up this list without reading the actual cases to see the significance of the individual cases.

PS Having just read DPP v Mukandiwa, it's obvious you have just cut and pasted the above list, because if you had read this case you would have realised that when it went to appeal, the appeal court sent it back to the original court with a direction to convict.

I wonder how many other cases above went against the person when it went to appeal?

[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]

Originally Posted by make them aktiv runners

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]

Originally Posted by Chesterexpress

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]

Originally Posted by danny_kiernan

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.

Originally Posted by danny_kiernan

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]

Originally Posted by danny_kiernan

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]

Originally Posted by Rob S

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]

Originally Posted by danny_kiernan

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]

Originally Posted by Rob S

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]

Originally Posted by danny_kiernan

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.