Safe Speed Forums

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/glou ... 656196.stm


Rugby star's court case dismissed


Paul has won three caps for England at rugby union
The case against England rugby star Henry Paul for failing to provide a breath test has been thrown out.
Mr Paul, 30, of Cheltenham, was stopped by police in the town in the early hours of March 21 2004.

Cheltenham Magistrates Court heard he refused a roadside breath test and two further tests at a police station.

But judge Graham Parsons threw out the case, saying the Crown could not prove Mr Paul did not have a good excuse for failing to provide a specimen.

Gloucester forward Mr Paul had denied failing to give a breath test, driving without due care and attention, not having a licence and driving without insurance at an earlier hearing.

On Tuesday the court heard he told officers that he had not been driving and that he could not provide the test because he had been sick 20 minutes earlier.

The case was dismissed after prosecution witness police surgeon Dr Simon McMinn said that if Mr Paul had felt sick it might have been a good enough excuse to not provide a breath specimen.

District Judge Mr Parsons said: "Had the doctor been called he could have examined Mr Paul and decided if he was or was not fit to provide a specimen.

"The Crown could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Paul didn't have an excuse for providing a specimen of breath, therefore the case against him is dismissed."

The New Zealand-born rugby player, who has an English grandparent, has won three caps with England, two of them in the recent Six Nations Championship

Perhaps it shows that the freemasons are still at it

_________________
I stole this .sig

AFAICT, if a police officer has reasonable cause to suspect that you've been driving or are about to drive, he can demand that you take a breath test. AIUI, you don't have to have been driving, the police merely need due cause to suspect you have. The defendant claimed he wasn't driving (and he doesn't have a license) but that doesn't matter because all that's needed is reasonable cause to suspect.

AIUI, If you refuse to take the test or fail to provide a sample, it counts as a failure. The law provides for reasonalble excuse (physical or mental incapacity to provide a sample, and I suspect that a likelihood of throwing up would meet both criteria!) That said, a positive breath test needs confirmation and if you have a reasonable excuse for failing to provide the first sample, it's likely the same excuse will suffice for the subsequent test, making a second breath test impractical.

The police have the power to demand a blood or urine test where a second breath test is impractical. Now, the defendant told the police that he felt sick. He was claiming to have a reasonable excuse to not give a breath test. Common sense says that the police should have used an alternative method to confirm the defendant's level of intoxication. A blood test would have shown irrefutably whether the defendant was over the limit and would get around any excuse for not giving a breath sample. I can only ask why they failed to use an alternative test method.

_________________
Will

The message I get from it is that not all courts are corrupt and it is possible to defend yourself against an unfounded allegation of a driving offence.

The man is innocent, end of story.

Oh please, have a day off mate

I know this subject raises people hackles but corrupt courts? Nah. You need to look a lot further than Cheltenham for real corruption,.