[Magdalen] Heather Cook

[Roger Stokes]

On 29/10/2015 01:16, thedonboyd at austin.rr.com wrote:
> (5)  As far as my awareness goes, drunk driving cases are extremely difficult to prosecute.  This may be due to the very high incidence of alcohol and/or drug abuse (and hence the disposition of jury panelists and judges to think that in some circumstances they themselves could have committed similar offenses).

That is why this side of the pond there is an objective measure that 
secures conviction - the blood-alcohol (often measured by breath-alcohol 
in the first and sometimes final instance) level. The precise level 
varies between countries but if somneone is over the limit then they are 
guilty - no need for jury deliberation.  If someone is below the limit 
then the old offence of driving while under the influence is still an 
option.  Testing for drugs is also coming in.

In the UK there is a minimum 12 month ban for the first offence of 
driving with excess alcohol.  For a second offence within 10 years then 
the minimum rises to three years.
All of this means that life is simpler for the officer out on the 
street.  If someone commits a miving traffic offence or has an accident, 
or the officer believes they have been drinking then they can be 
required to take a breath test.  Refuse or fail that and they are 
arrested and taken to the police station to use a fixed calibrated 
machine.  The lower of two readings from that is sufficient evudence in 
court.

Roger