Drink drivers saved by the steam from their urine!!!

Amazing decision imo. If this level of proof was required for the 'usual' criminal prosecutions, I can assure you the acquittal rate would be substantially higher. Personally, I find it difficult to comprehend how a judge can make such a ruling without some medical evidence proving such a possibility (at least on the balance of probability).

I recall one particular Judge dismissing a dangerous driving charge over some lecturer who had gone through a red light at speed and badly injured a cyclist. He was of the view that stormy weather affected the mind in strange ways and clouded the ability of this driver. This 'weather conditions defence' was not even made by the defendants Solicitor; it was a pure concoction of the judge.

I really do think people would be amazed about the quality of our judiciary. All court proceedings should be videotaped imo.
 
Askar said:
I really do think people would be amazed about the quality of our judiciary. All court proceedings should be videotaped imo.
Click to expand...

If the Gardai cannot follow basic procedures, why blame the judges? As starlite68 says, the judge's role is to implement the law, not cover over the errors of the Gardai.
 
IMHO, this case vividly illustrates the insanity and lack of common sense that pervades our society and, in particular the legal system.

In this case the judge equated inhalation of vapour with consumption, by mouth or nose. As I understand it, the law says "nothing by mouth", obviously, in my view, meaning that nothing should be eaten or drunk during the observation period. If the law is to be interpreted in the manner adopted in this case, it is only a matter of time before a passing, or being held in a Garda near/adjacent to a pub or brewery will be regarded as a vaid defence.

It now appears that people being held on suspicion of drunken driving will have to be prevented from going to the toilet before giving their sample.....of cource they can always soil themselves...and inhale the "steam".............

Are we living in cloud cuckooland or what.......????

Take to the hills ........The lunatics have taken over the asylum!!!
 
Was anyone here in the courtroom to hear the actual decision?

I have a fair idea that the Kerryman were taking the ****

Judge O'Connor has a sense of humour and I'd imagine that part was tongue in cheek- the actual judgement, AFAIK, revolved around the 20 minute period not being properly observed by the Gardai.
 
The problem with drink-driving legislation, and the many oddities it generates in terms of outcomes to cases, lies with the structure of the penalties for breaches of the applicable limits, and the inexact science underlying the tests, particularly in cases where a driver is deemed to be only marginally over the limit. Were the penalties for minor breaches not so severe, drivers would not need to resort to improbable interpretations of the law in an attempt to escape sanction. And in the absence of a system of graduated penalties, drivers are well within their rights to do so.
 
Judges instinctively do not like legislation which does not allow them to exercise their judicial functions. Drink Driving legislation, as a result of the myriad of challenges giving rise to amending legislation and the closing off of loopholes, is almost cast-iron in it's impregnability and the result of this is that the judge's input is fairly close to being a rubber stamp situation.

So every now and again when a case comes along which enables the judge to show his humanity and independence of character, he/she takes it. It sort of prevents the citizenry from saying that "it's automatic" or "the judge has no option", etc.

But the first critical thing to be looked at is the application by the Gardai of the very precise procedure to be followed when processing a suspected Drunk Driver. This relates to legal rights and the requesting, obtaining, handling, noting, documenting, and securing of any samples taken from the suspect. Any flaw or uncertainty in the procedure invariably results in instant dismissal. This all has to do with fairness of procedure.
No one should be convicted by unfair procedures.

But 'pee steam' ? It is now clear that 'Cloakroom Attendants' in this country have a case similar to that brought successfully by 'passive smokers' and must be compensated. There is a clear discrimination case if they are denied their claim.
P.S. Wonder if Kingdom 'pee steam' is a more potent variety than other rural variants ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top