Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
I have just had a quick read through some paperwork relating to an ongoing case with a work colleague of mine.
One witness in particular has stated that they had consumed a certain amount of alcohol which I was easily able to check within 2 mins to be approx two times the NHS recommended WEEKLY safe amount for their gender. Bearing in mind this was during ONE evening.
Surely this witness cannot be classed as credible?!
Not that the information they have given is damaging, I'm just a bit miffed as to why the CPS would see fit to include this statement, given the above reason?
One witness in particular has stated that they had consumed a certain amount of alcohol which I was easily able to check within 2 mins to be approx two times the NHS recommended WEEKLY safe amount for their gender. Bearing in mind this was during ONE evening.
Surely this witness cannot be classed as credible?!
Not that the information they have given is damaging, I'm just a bit miffed as to why the CPS would see fit to include this statement, given the above reason?
Show More
Get a medical expert to challenge it. Memory impairment as well as ability to understand the relevant event is compromisised by the imbibement of that amount of alcohol. If it impairs ones ability to drive, it impairs ones ability to do anything else. As long as the alcohol level can be proved, it has lest chance of standing up in court than a 100 year old man's penis without a massive dose of Viagra.
I hope this is of assistance.
I hope this is of assistance.
Thanks slicer. Very valid point regarding the driving.
It's unlikely to have affected their ability to understand at all - the level of alcohol for driving is extremely low, and having double the legally prescribed amount is still pretty insignificant - the CPS would argue you are clutching at straws and I would agree the CPS are completely right to include the statement
Father maguire. It's not me firstly (honest)
And my post reads double the recommended WEEKLY allowance in a single evening.
I would agree if it was only the daily allowance, that would be insignificant. But weekly?...I don't think this is clutching at straws at all.
And my post reads double the recommended WEEKLY allowance in a single evening.
I would agree if it was only the daily allowance, that would be insignificant. But weekly?...I don't think this is clutching at straws at all.
Weekly allowance is about 9 pints of standard strength beer
The consumption of alcohol MUST CAST DOUBT on the testimony. Casting doubt is all that is necessary!
I hope this further clarifies the matter!
I hope this further clarifies the matter!
Witnesses have to pass a sobriety test upon entering the court, they simply only have to prove that they are "as sober as a judge" apparently, 
Parachute, Probably not wise of me to comment on any details of this case, As I'm sure you will appreciate.
Totally understand crackajack7. Can't think why the thought occurred to me...
"for their gender"
"for their gender"
"For their gender" does not specify a female or male
As you say crackajack7, probably best not to discuss somebody else's ongoing cases "anonymously" ....
I suppose you're correct parachute. Im just interested in what other opinions are regarding decisions like this made by the CPS. Ultimately I believe this account may be dismissed as not credible. But that could be after a lengthy process which will only end up costing the uk taxpayers, I'm guessing.
Don't worry about the UK taxpayers.
Abu Hamza was allowed not to go to a court hearing because he refused to allow a chiropodist deal with his toenails which were causing pain. It is those who allow this to happen who should foot the bill. The UK government has plenty of money to take into account personal feelings and human rights, but no money for life saving anti cancer drugs on the NHS!
Abu Hamza was allowed not to go to a court hearing because he refused to allow a chiropodist deal with his toenails which were causing pain. It is those who allow this to happen who should foot the bill. The UK government has plenty of money to take into account personal feelings and human rights, but no money for life saving anti cancer drugs on the NHS!
his toenails which were causing pain. It is those who allow this to happen who should "foot the bill"
. Dr Slicer a cleverly worked pun.
. Dr Slicer a cleverly worked pun.
Fair enough point c7. I don't know what CPS criteria is these days but % of a conviction isn't always their only priority.
As for the taxpayer issue - taxpayers pay for everything and always have. As a taxpayer I feel better about supporting some things rather than others. However, I vote and pay taxes.
I donate when the taxpayer doesn't pay, when I can, for something I feel strongly about.
As for the taxpayer issue - taxpayers pay for everything and always have. As a taxpayer I feel better about supporting some things rather than others. However, I vote and pay taxes.
I donate when the taxpayer doesn't pay, when I can, for something I feel strongly about.
apologies crackajack - misread the opening message - so if its a woman its 28 units and a man is 42 units - that does change things somewhat I would agree
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539