Police lying

Buzz1200

New member
Hi, I had court recently for a drug driving charge and the police claimed I admitted everything in a recorded interview, this never happened as I never had an interview. they also claimed to breathalyse me before doing the drugs wipe test when I was pulled over originally, this also didnt happen. this is amongst other factual inaccuracies on what actually happened but those are the main two.

I have pleaded not guilty to these charges as I had consumed my small quantity of cannabis post driving and the other cannabis found was a passenger's and they are taking the blame for that as such. as I have pleaded not guilty, will the police have to provide evidence of this made up interview?! seems the whole thing (from the reason they pulled me over through to the end) is based upon lies and fabricated stories.

any advice or thoughts would be great

thanks

Convicted Driver Insurance

Compare quotes from leading covicted driver insurance specialists in the UK

Get Quotes
 

Buzz1200

New member
forgot to say, is this not essentially the police perverting the course of justice? if I made up stuff like that I'd get punished!
 
If the police wish to rely on an admission in tape recorded interview they will have to produce the interview for you to consider. Suggesting it exits its not enough. A roadside breath test is irrelevant to a drug driving charge and will be unlikely to be produced in any event. If you consumed the drug after you drove you can use that as a defence, however, the burden is on you to prove that is what happened. It is otherwise presumed in law that the level of drug in your system at the time of your evidential test was the level at the time of driving. You will need to instruct a forensic toxicologist to assist you with presenting this argument to the court.
 
Section 15 Road Traffic Offenders Act means there is a legal presumption that the level at the time of the test is taken to be the level at the time of driving. Whilst it may be argued that the police lack credibility if they are proven to be deliberately misleading about certain facts, it will not rebut that presumption. That has to be done by you proving the sequence of events you describe in your original post, namely that you did not use the drug until after you drove. At the moment, they have evidence of you driving and evidence that you are over the limit. This is all they need for that legal presumption to apply.
 

Buzz1200

New member
funny how they are allowed to lie. one rule for them I guess another for everyone else

Convicted Driver Insurance

Compare quotes from leading covicted driver insurance specialists in the UK

Get Quotes
 
Top