Friday, June 09, 2006

Double Listing

I have spent a few days down at my local Magistrates Court this week. Today I had a special reasons hearing for a drink drive case where my Client claimed that he was drink driving because his drink was spiked. The case was always going to be quick and simple to deal with.

I got to Court nice and early and by 9.50 am I was ready for trial. My case was listed in a Court room with another trial. That trial took priority due to child witnesses so I had to wait around for another Court room to become free. In the other Court scheduled to deal with trials today they were also double listed.

Her Majesty's Court Service have a wonderful habit of double listing trials hoping that one of the trials will not be effective so that the other trial can then take place. Unfortunately today all the trials scheduled were ready.

My case was adjourned off until the afternoon shortly before lunch. I had to wait for about three hours this morning to be told to come back at 2.00 pm. It would have made more sense to put my one hour trial on before the others knowing that my trial would be short and sweet. When I did at last get my chance my special reasons hearing took place, the Magistrates found that special reasons did exist but then decided to disqualify my Client anyway!

5 comments:

Lennie Briscoe said...

how on earth does that work ??..

Gavin said...

Apparently the bench were of the opinion that:

1. My Client's drink had been spiked;
2. My Client would not have been over the drink drive limit on the alcohol that he did consume; and
3. My Client was unaware that his alcohol level was over the limit.

But, they decided that he should have felt drunker than he did, so disqualified him.

This is good law and is not appealable.

Anonymous said...

If he'd been spiked he'd have known all about it and if he had an ounce of responsibility, he'd have known he wasn't fit to drive and would have made other arrangements.

I'd bet my back teeth on the fact that he wasn't spiked and am truly glad he's been banned, before he kills someone.

Tough shit.

PC HAPPY

Anonymous said...

By the way, did he mention the fact that he thought he must have been spiked at the police station? I bet he didn't, therefore giving Police (who are impartial) the opportunity to find evidence to support him claim. Speaking to others at the location where he consumed the alcohol, etc....
Was he charged with section 5 or 4? If it was a 4, saying he thought he had been spiked, would have given the Police opportunity to take blood to find traces of any 'drugs.'

PC HAPPY

Gavin said...

PC HAPPY,

My instructions were that he did not know his drink had been spiked until after he had left the Police Station and was told by the person that spiked his drinks that they had been spiked.

I don't make up these instructions, I have to deal with the case as it comes to me.