Due to a procedural error.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-12482462
Tho I fail to see how this error should have been sufficient to get the case thrown out.
|
|
The plods have long memories, they will get him next time.
|
Here's hoping, ON. What a shocking, feeble excuse he made and what a transparent attempt at self publicity it is, when he should be simply ashamed of himself.
What an absolute shower.
|
>> he should be simply ashamed of himself.
What, for 83 milligrams? Leave it out Alanovic.
|
|
Drink driving, throw the book. No excuses.
|
>> Drink driving, throw the book. No excuses.
I know yours is a widespread view Alanovic, but I don't agree. One size doesn't fit all. The permitted BAL is quite low for a large fit person who has a few drinks regularly.
I agree there's a problem though. Essentially it boils down to the absence of a generally agreed objective way of measuring impairment at the roadside, the Leith police, walk the line, touch your nose, all that palaver.
Driving a car isn't brain surgery. The sort of slight impairment that results from 83 mg is really neither here nor there to a competent driver. And here lies the other problem: half the drivers one sees on the road whose driving shows significant impairment are probably just sober people who always drive like that.
The whole thing is a damn minefield. But I don't share the punitive throw-the-key-away attitude you and others here seem to have. There but for the grace of God go half of us I shouldn't wonder.
|
|
Your make sense to an extent AC, but I still hold that if a person knows they're going to be driving, then surely they must accept that they should not drink before doing so. And should a transportation requirment unexpectedly arise when inebriated (however lightly), an alternative is pretty much always available.
|
>> I still hold that if a person knows they're going to be driving, then surely they
>> must accept that they should not drink before doing so.
They should not exceed the limit.
>> And should a transportation requirment unexpectedly arise when inebriated
>> (however lightly), an alternative is pretty much always available.
Yes, it is. In this case he could have taken a taxi, or sent someone else. In a tiny fraction of prosecutions, "necessity" could be a defence.
|
It always astonishes me that owners of Porsche Cayennes and Range Rovers don't have the readies for a cab when they've been out enjoying a few bottles of vintage Cristal.
Pretty much every one I see (and I see a lot around here) has at least one illegal tyre on it also.
|
>> Yes, it is. In this case he could have taken a taxi, or sent someone
>> else. In a tiny fraction of prosecutions, "necessity" could be a defence.
The cat defence was rejected, it was the second sample thing that got him off.
|
>> >> In a tiny fraction of prosecutions, "necessity" could be a defence.
>> The cat defence was rejected, it was the second sample thing that got him off.
I know. I read the OP looked up the details.
|
|
Actually, there was no "cat defence". He told police that he went out to get a screwdriver to free his cat. That's not a defence.
|
|
The cat angle just makes him look an even bigger prannock than he would otherwise have done.
|
It seems two samples were taken, the second of which was strictly speaking illegally taken because the nurse already had a usable sample.
It was only the second sample that was analysed, so no analysis has been made of a legally taken sample - sample number one.
I'm not defending the decision, but I can see there may be problems with prosecuting a drink driver when you do not have the result of a legally taken sample.
The other thought is sample number two was only marginally over the limit.
If Swann has got away with drink driving, he has not got away with the most serious case.
|
|
I`m no builder or Carpenter by any standards, but I thought floor-boards were "nailed" to the joists? - shouldn`t he have req a "jemmy" and hammer instead of a screw-driver?
|
>> I`m no builder or Carpenter by any standards, but I thought floor-boards were "nailed" to
>> the joists? - shouldn`t he have req a "jemmy" and hammer instead of a screw-driver?
My house was built in 1998. The 'floorboards' are chipwood squares secured to the joists with screws.
|
>>I`m no builder or Carpenter by any standards, <<
;-) see! told you!
|
>> Here's hoping, ON. What a shocking, feeble excuse he made and what a transparent attempt
>> at self publicity it is, when he should be simply ashamed of himself.
>>
>> What an absolute shower.
Just goes to show what a lawyer can do for you if you have the money. This would never have been picked up by most lawyers. Which is why, of course, a murder trial takes 10 times longer if you are rich, because a motivated lawyer can pick up on a hundred different angles.
|
We have due process so everybody understands the system. Depart from due process and the defendant might walk.
CPS took it to court & after argument before a judge lost. Hopefully they and the sampling analysis process wil learn from the experaince. I'm trying to decide if I'd be as relaxed if the BAL hadn't been only marginally over the limit.
|
A cynic might think a person who had been drinking to celebrate their birthday might be heading to a supermarket to buy more drink.
But reports elsewhere say Swann came up with the trapped cat explanation as soon as the police stopped him.
Not that it matters where he was going or why, he was either over the limit or not.
|
|
Yes. We must stop agreeing like this.
|
>> Yes. We must stop agreeing like this.
>
Yes please do, The thought of such a coalition makes me shudder.
|
All sweetness and light between me and my new chum, particularly after Fulham put the brakes on Chelsea the other night.
|
|
Gah. 93rd minute penalty. Saved. Gah. Only Fulham can do this.
|
Games between London clubs are always a good bet for a draw, often a score draw.
It was said years ago that a London club going for what is now the Premiership would lose the title in London, by drawing - home or away - with supposedly lesser sides.
|
Look, if the billing and cooing is going to turn every thread to excrement (or 'football' as it is often called) I too think it's time to call a halt.
Has no one these days heard of divorce? It's the civilised solution.
|
>> Look, if the billing and cooing is going to turn every thread to excrement (or
>> 'football' as it is often called) I too think it's time to call a halt.
>>
These football extermists are becoming a pain in the sitting equipment.
|
Nothing like a bit of red hot soccer chat.
|
Looks sour.
Spits copious stream of tobacco juice onto the head of the nearest domestic pet. Scratches crotch at length.
|
...Scratches crotch at length...
No need to boast. :)
Veering back towards topic, I get the impression there's a handful of top cricketers who earn almost as much as Premiership footballers.
Sober Swanny in this thread is driving a Cayenne, and I read something about Freddie Flintoff's house which is in Footballers' Row in Cheshire and for sale for several million.
|
>> Look, if the billing and cooing is going to turn every thread to excrement (or
>> 'football' as it is often called) I too think it's time to call a halt.
Jealousy, AC. Ugly emotion.
|
>> But reports elsewhere say Swann came up with the trapped cat explanation as soon as
>> the police stopped him.
It never ceases to amaze me that the police only ever catch drunk drivers while they are on some mission of mercy.
|
Lets hope this Swann character doesn't get run over one day by another drink driver who was on his way to 'rescue his cat'
Over the limit = he knew he'd been drinking = pay the penalty.
|
|
He has been in front of a court, prosecution and defence have presented thier cases and he has been found not guilty. Is there anything else I need to know? The comment re "A drink Driver" is out of order IMO. Swann was not proved to be drunk.
|
''The second that was analysed showed Mr Swann's blood had 83mg of alcohol in 100ml of blood, which is over the legal limit of 80mg.''
Over the limit = legally drunk.
''District Judge Julia Newton said it had not been proved that a blood sample taken from Swann on the night he was pulled over could be used as evidence.''
''Two samples of blood were taken from Mr Swann when nurse Lisa Hodgkinson decided the first 2ml sample of blood was not enough and took another 5ml sample.''
Found not guilty of drink-driving on a technicality.
All what is needed in future DD cases is to make sure that the blood taken is a very small amount (keep moving whilst sample is taken?) so a second sample has to be taken. ;-)
|
|
I hold no brief for any form of law breaking. If he was legally drunk the court would have found him guilty - they did not. The case was brought, he produced a defence and was found not guilty, full stop. To say he was guilty but they couldn't prove it is not a fair assessment of the situation. The justice system decided he wasn't, for whatever reason and who are we to argue with it? We are free to discuss it but it may be worth waiting to see if the CPS appeal the verdict. How strongly do they feel that the verdict was wrong and do they they think they have a case?
|
>> I hold no brief for any form of law breaking. If he was legally drunk
>> the court would have found him guilty - they did not. The case was brought,
>> he produced a defence and was found not guilty, full stop. To say he was
>> guilty but they couldn't prove it is not a fair assessment of the situation.
It's not as black and white as that is it PP. He was over the limit, but due to a technicality, he *couldn't* be found guilty.
It is true that he has not legally been found guilty, but other's can still consider you guilty of something, regardless of whether a court found you guilty.
Contrast a serial killer, where the police find the bodies in the guy's house, along with plenty of other physical evidence, but then a smart lawyer finds a flaw in the warrant application and gets it all thrown out on the basis of an illegal search.
Of course, the killer isn't found legally guilty, but to suggest, by reasonable standards that he is "innocent" is stretching things too far.
Same here.
|
I think we shall have agree to disagree on this! I wasn't in court and didn't hear the evidence. If a court found him not guilty then that is the legal position, regardless of whether "Others can still consider him guilty" They can consider what they like - it is a free country but the ruling of the court is what stands.
Let me put it another way - will he have to declare to his insurers that he has been convicted of any offence of any sort in connection wo driving under the influence? I guess NOT!
|
>> Over the limit = legally drunk.
As far as I'm concerned, over the limit means just that. It's possible that a lifelong teetotaller who has a couple of pints of beer at 3.6% will be under the limit, but too drunk to drive (and actually liable to prosecution).
|
England cricketer Found Not Guilty of D&D - Old Navy
