Best thing to be if caught over the limit is a policeman!

Rosie

Well-known member
#2
Now, this kind of thing really annoys me... it really shouldnt be "one rule for one and another rule for the rest of us".... in the past 37 months while Ive been banned ive read umpteen news articles that have really p**d me off... people who flipped their cars with their kids inside, people whove crashed into hotels causing thousands of pounds worth of damage, people drink driving doing 70 in a school zone at 1pm in the afternoon... and they received more than half the ban i got and mine was late night, quiet road, no people, no crash, no injuries....
no justice! lol..
Not belittling what ive done by any means, but the vast range of decisions magistrates and judges seem to make for drink driving sometimes borders on ludicrous.. I really DO get the impression that they waddle off to a room and just say "ok what shall we give this one then?" and a lot depends on their mood on the day
 

DonkeyKong

Well-known member
#3
He had just qualified as British Transport Police.
If he hadn’t been caught, he be out there now, catching other drivers, who almost certainly would get the STATUTORY MINIMUM 12 months ban.

hopefully I can look for work that is dependent on keeping my licence.”

“ 'It must be said there was a clear intention to drive here, which is a big factor for the court.”

“You have been very, very close to immediate disqualification but I am just persuaded not to.'”

By being almost twice the limit, he was “very very close” to a ban. How do you 35s-60s on a 12-24 ban think about that? He was a Transport Cop who would have had intense training on DUI - this wasn’t an aggravating factor... it was a mitigating one.

Anyway, congrats mate... you get on with your life, keep driving, keep hiring cars... basically just keep doing all of the things none of us here can.

I would have paid 5 grand for this “sentance”
 
Last edited:

Rosie

Well-known member
#4
Fully agree..... If anything, they should come down heavier on someone who is actually with the transport police! The law is an utter farce at times.

After the ban/the fine/the curfew/the tagging and (yet to come) the medical, I found out that it doesnt just stop there.... you cant hire a car until 5 years after conviction and not only your car insurance more than doubles, some struggle with home insurance (which i think is ridiculous as what has insuring your home got to do with a DD conviction? Its not like we're all in danger of driving our cars through our house!)
And also... apparently there are some countries I will never be able to visit, unless I travel to London and put myself before some kind of panel of people to be scrutinised and put my "case" forward to ask if i am allowed to have a holiday there.
 

DonkeyKong

Well-known member
#5
It was presented to the court that I needed to travel across Europe for my job. I told them that if I lose my job, I would find it nigh-on impossible to find another one in my field. I told them if I lost my job, I would not be able to pay the mortgage, so we would lose the house. Then me, wife, kids, would be homeless. I was told in no uncertain terms that was no lee-way whatsoever in the “statutory” 12 month ban. They banned me for 2.5 years knowing it would Potentially ruin my life. I cant hire a car for another 3 years after my ban, effecting my employment prospects for 5 years. I can’t go to Canada where my mum might get remarried for the next 10 years. I can’t go to the US on business - my employers HQ, without yet another medical and £500 fees for *every visit*. Car insurance may be tripled, and house insurance may be cancelled until 5 years passed for Rehab of Offenders kicks in.

But Mr Policeman can change his career now. Maybe become a bus driver, or get his HGV. And use his earnings to pay for a trip to Canada, where he can hire a car to see the sites! And not have to attend any driving courses... because he wasn’t banned.

Not bitter, obviously. I’d love to see anyone at all try and defend this.
 

craig121

Well-known member
#7
Now this is just plain wrong! Everyone whom looses there licence will experience some kind of hardship, unsure how he's treated different unless he had the special ring#

Not long ago heard a Perth woman keep her licence so she could continue to make alcoholic meetings! Now blow me* if anyone more likely to reoffend might it not be an Alcoholic! Granted she needs help but hang on a minute!
 

Drew B

Active member
#8
I just read the Telegraph article - what happened to 'statutory ban' like we all received, without reference to personal mitigating circumstances??!!

Are magistrates even allowed to do that?
 
#9
This is down to incorrect wording in the reports. 10 points, OR disqualification is the punishment for being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle.... in other words he did not actually drive. As he clearly was going to drive then I think he should have been banned, but as the law stands, it is termed a “drink driving offence” but the actual charge was for not driving, just being in charge of a vehicle therefore the 10 points option can legally be offered.
donkeyKong was convicted of driving whilst over the prescribed limit so there is no discretion, disqualification is mandatory.
If he had moved towards leaving the car park and been stopped then it would have to have been a ban.
As I said, I don’t agree with the outcome, but it is within the law. It wasn’t special treatment for the Police, he hadn’t even joined at that time.
 

TipsyNurse

Well-known member
#10
With these cases it is always better to remember that the magistrates or judge has every detail of the case.

That said if you are caught behind the wheel when not driving there are three possible outcomes.

Drink driving - mandatory ban.

Drunk in charge - 10pts or ban.

Defence that you weren't going to drive until you were under the prescribed limit - acquittal.

Drunk in charge is an option for everyone, not just police.

My view, which some may dislike, is that everyone charged with drink driving when you have not actually moved the car should meet the prosecutor on the day and offer to plead guilty to drunk in charge if they drop the DD.

In theory if you haven't been charged with both it shouldn't be permitted. But prosecutors are pragmatic and you're offering them an easy morning and early lunch. Many will agree to an alternate conviction rather than the risk of a contested trial.

Don't ask, don't get. Drunk in charge is must endorse with 10 points, may disqualify. In the sentencing guidelines the high likelihood of driving would be aggravating, but no previous convictions, remorse and previous good character would count as mitigation.

To me 10pts is bang in line with sentencing guidelines. As you can see below there are all sorts of things you get credit for in drunk in charge you don't get for DD, so you have a better chance of getting 10pts.

Factors increasing seriousness
Statutory aggravating factors
  • Previous convictions, having regard to a) the nature of the offence to which the conviction relates and its relevance to the current offence; and b) the time that has elapsed since the conviction
  • Offence committed whilst on bail
Other aggravating factors
  • Failure to comply with current court orders
  • Offence committed on licence or post sentence supervision
  • In charge of LGV, HGV, PSV etc
  • High likelihood of driving
  • Offering to drive for hire or reward
Factors reducing seriousness or reflecting personal mitigation
  • No previous convictions or no relevant/recent convictions
  • Low likelihood of driving
  • Spiked drinks *
  • Remorse
  • Good character and/or exemplary conduct
  • Serious medical condition requiring urgent, intensive or long-term treatment
  • Age and/or lack of maturity where it affects the responsibility of the offender
  • Mental disorder or learning disability
  • Sole or primary carer for dependent relatives
*even where not amounting to special reasons
 

craig121

Well-known member
#11
Bang in line with sentacing is one thing, but he's had every intention of driving which should be added to the charge sheet! It's not a case of looking for a bed(no intentions) he was and did plan to drive! He's a drunk driver even if the wheels never turned! But am guessing he got preferential treatement
 

TipsyNurse

Well-known member
#12
Bang in line with sentacing is one thing, but he's had every intention of driving which should be added to the charge sheet! It's not a case of looking for a bed(no intentions) he was and did plan to drive! He's a drunk driver even if the wheels never turned! But am guessing he got preferential treatement
But the sentencing guidelines say a high likelihood of driving is one aggravating factor. This person also had several mitigating factors.

DD essentially has almost no mitigating factors. Drunk in charge allows magistrates considerably more discretion. Admitting you intended to drive isn't a nail in the coffin for getting 10pts for drunk in charge. You can claim the sentencing guidelines are unfair, but it's a bit unfair to blame the judge when the sentencing guidelines say the default position should be 10pts.
 

DonkeyKong

Well-known member
#13
if It makes any difference to this discussion at all... I was not caught driving. I was asleep in my car. I was prosecuted for drunk in charge AND drunk driving. They dropped the drunk in charge and went with drink driving. This is because I admitted that I must have drunk drove to get to the place I was asleep. So, Mr Policeman was ABOUT to drink drive. And I must have done. Neither of us was caught actually drink driving. It’s just semantics. I did drink drive. That’s why admitted it. But this guy was going to as well.
 

DonkeyKong

Well-known member
#14
TipsyNurse - what mitigating factors did Policeman have? And why, without any evidence did police decide to investigate a guy who was simply warming his car before driving? They MUST have suspected him of something or why would they even bother? There’s many a time I’ve sat in Southampton Airport Shortterm Car Park waiting for my car to warm up, and Police never came.
 
Last edited:
#15
It is impossible to know why the police approached the person in the first place. He may have been sad on an empty car park for several minutes with his engine running and there were concerns for his health, someone may have seen him staggering towards his car and reported it to BTO who came along a few minutes later. He may have had his radio on very loud and drawn attention to the vehicle at 1am.... the list could go on!
BUT it is not really fair to keep referring to him as a Police Officer. He had completed his training at a training centre, but he had never been “let loose”. And the Police do not get special treatment, as is shown in what was said..... “The court heard that he resigned from his new career before it had even begun, after being told no-one had ever kept their job after being charged with such an offence.”
 

craig121

Well-known member
#16
I still dont get this! he was drunk & engine was running prepared to drive! I understand what your saying Price but the wording
"Pearce's future job prospects were handed a lifeline as he narrowly kept his licence, when Pattinson handed Pearce with 10 penalty points on his licence instead."

Judges remark!
*I will give you credit for your guilty plea. Quite frankly, this has destroyed your career for you. But I do take into account the personal mitigation here. **

\Sticks in yer throat! Yes I was to blame and I lost my works position & Salary which in turn lost my house, Then involed me being homeless & moved in with father law whom had dementia was a god send for him! but a nightmare for us, I promised to quit alcohol and rebuild my life!whats he shown other than first stages NOT loosing his Licence! hes still got a licence(thank you Judge) I would love to know the stats of who all keeps there licence's after being in charge of the running vehicle being double the drink limit and can walk away!yes policemen(albiet not fully qualified) maybe celebraties or people with silent freinds

Like Donkeykong said Someone explain his personal special mitigation the judge seen*
 
Last edited:
#17
Sadly, I see quite a few cases where a person should have been charged with drink DRIVING, and therefore subject to the minimum ban of 12 months but the police - and CPS - have taken the soft option of going for ‘in charge’ jthere was even one where the police arrived at traffic lights where 2 motorists had obviously driven and had an altercation when they pulled up, but as the police had not seen the driving they took the easy way out with the in charge offence, because they had seen the offender in charge of the vehicle. As TipsyNurse said, the starting point for in charge is 10 points, so rather than say “what we’re the special circumstances” you have to ask ‘what were the aggravating circumstances?’ Now many people (including me) might say that the aggravating circumstances were that he was twice the limit but getting ready to drive home and put road users at risk. If, however, he or his solicitor put forward that he was only keeping warm in the car and was going to call a taxi, how would the prosecution prove otherwise? It boils down to what the district judge or magistrates make of what is presented to them in each case.
 

craig121

Well-known member
#20
Thanks Price above posts makes sence with mitagation but! , just we never heard his mitagation in court! maybe he purchased a hotdog from Network rail ! and it was a little cold whilst waiting for said taxi he decided to heat mr sausage on now warmed up dash whilst being pISHED!!¬"
but lucky I have silent freinds ) In all honesty thank the police force for chassing him and ended in court
 
Last edited:
Buy CDT Test
Top