It is reported today that Paul Gascoigne, once one of the world's best footballers, has pleaded Not Guilty to drink-driving, and that the case has been put off for trial before magistrates (unless a DJ snaffles the case, as so often happens with celebs).
I have no knowledge of this particular case but it does illustrate the fact that with the consequences of a drink-drive conviction being so serious (and at the reading quoted in the report prison, as well as a very long driving ban has to be a possibility) many people who can afford it are prepared to pay many thousands of pounds to specialist lawyers to fight the case. In the normal run of things there are only two questions to consider: were you over the limit? - that will be settled by the reading from forensics or the intoximeter - and were you driving? - that will depend on evidence from police and other witnesses. The law on driving with excess alcohol is complex, and fertile ground for the Nick Freemans of this world to try to sow doubt in. There is the Cracknell v Willis defence of challenging the breath machine (not much help in a urine sample case though) and myriad technical issues.
I have seen offers of courses in motoring law for solicitors that make the point that this is one of the decreasing number of areas where the private individual is prepared to shell out hefty fees to try to stay on the road. Let's see how it goes.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Posts are pre-moderated. Please bear with us if this takes a little time, but the number of bores and obsessives was getting out of hand, as were the fake comments advertising rubbish.