blew 41

[andy mac]

would like to thank price and bristol red as I was on this site over a year and a half ago totally stressed out my box looking for any angle to get out of my situation after blowing 41. they put my mind at rest with brilliant advice with a laugh along the way. i am sure you two will remember some of the daft things i was coming up with totally irrelevant to my case (whisky present,dampness in room,industrial degreaser to wash hands) I'm sure theirs a couple of other things. today i was in court and my defence was police allowing me to urinate before breath test ruling out my urine sample then given advice that dissuaded me from taking a blood sample (taking a blood sample they would do a back calculation and would be worse for me) but in the end just before trial the case was thrown out as they couldn't prove i was driving they never asked me if i was the driver of the vehicle have you heard of this price or bristol?

 

[price1367]

Indeed I do remember, I had to tell you several times to focus on the REAL issues that could form your defence.... But you did not mention what eventually succeeded (the 'advice' to not bother with a blood sample should have worked anyway) in that they could not show that you were the driver. Especially as you said:

Originally Posted by andy mac
i explained that i was struck by a black cleo head on he turned on to oncoming traffic (me) the guy hit me around 40 i was traveling about 30 so my body is still feeling batterd......

did the officer not put that in his evidence? It should be a fundamental part of the case that the officer either saw you driving, or if he didn't, then he asked you when he arrived at the scene " were you driving the this vehicle?"

you had had a good result.