Facing a drink driving charge

Discussion in 'Army Pay, Claims & JPA' started by melbobson, Feb 13, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Hi i dunno if u can help me, my husbands facing a drink driving charge even tho it wasnt him driving, They have 1 statement saying it was him driving but the person who made the statement is retracting it, his mate was driving and has admitted this too the police but because my husband was over the limit they r pinning it on him. Hes had his FMT and BFG driving permit taken off him.

    I was just wondering if ne one knows if the worst happens and hes charged what is likely to come of it ie: punishment etc, i know he will possibly loose his licence or at least his BFG permit and FMT but i was wondering what else they can do him with! Its a nightmare as his paperwork for his class 2 is just about to go through and hes up for possible promotion in september (i think its september??) This year ne ways! Im just bricking it as if theres gonna b a fine and drop in pay etc were screwed we have 2 kids n a baby on the way and r struggling as it is. Thanks for ne advice forgiven.
  2. If he wasn't driving then he just has to go to court and prove it. Call the person who was, as a witness and the person who retracted their statement to attend as well.
  3. MB,

    You have lost me completely here (which being a police officer is fairly easy). He was either driving or he wasn't. The old bill can either prove he was driving or they can't.

    How was he 'caught', by whom, was he put on the breath machine, what's he been charged with (impaired or unfit?), what evidence do they have etc. More back ground needed before I can comment.


  4. He was caught when the RMPs found him drunk in his mates room they were looking for him to tell him off for being somewhere he shouldnt have been and saw he was drunk, asked if that was his car outside which he replied yeah and they said someone had reported him for driving drunk.

    He was breathalised and had a blood test taken which proved he was drunk but the 1 person who supposedly saw him driving made a statement and has now retracted it!! His mate says he was driving, but the police had this statement from someone saying he was deffinately driving!! The police dont actually know who was driving as hubby said it was his mate and his mate owned up to driving.

    He hasnt been charged with ne thing yet they have just told him he is under investigation! Dunno if that helps!
  5. Just sounds like his mate is trying to help him out by lieing to me. And if he was drunk while driving, he deserves anything he gets.

  6. He was driving and both you and he know it. The story you've spouted isn't original and has been tried on several times. Do your husband and his mate think that they've cooked up a 'stormer' here?

    Never mind about FMTs and BFG permits, he'll lose his license and for however long the DCM feels he should and that'll all be dependant upon how much alcohol was in his system at the time and a few other issues. He will also recieve a fine (large) and may even go to jail.

    If he and his mate keep up this nonsense when they get to DCM, I can guarantee you that they'll both be locked up.
  7. Back on a more even keel.......

    Any successful court case rests on the evidence presented to the court by the prosecution (and duly gathered by the police). If the evidence has holes and is not considered beyond reasonable doubt, then it should be dismissed. IMHO your husband needs to get himself a good lawyer.

    As a small aside and from what you tell me, I would be very suspicious of the story presented by your hubby and his mate. My antennae would be vibrating like a 14 year old's mattress when Miss World was on TV.

    If conicted he could expect a 12 month ban and or points/fine. If this seriously impinges on his military employment, he could be considered for an admin discharge. If the court thinks hubby and his mate are lying there is a possibility of a charge of attempting to 'pervert the course of justice'. This last one usually ends in a custodial sentence (and a probable 'services no longer' required job).
  8. I'm all for getting one over on the RMP every now and again but this time I'm afraid I agree with Provost Marshall. Drink driving can't be compared to being caught in the female accn or being out of bounds at Rauls etc. This story has been used time and time again and I have never seen it prevail (Justice did though)!! Puppies and piles of poo come too mind!!
  9. Right..... if they have enough evidence and charge him, he does not need to say one more word and they cannot question him further. If not charged and re-invited for an interview he does not have to answer any question which he previously has answered.

    The police, service or civil have to have proof that he was driving. Get a solicitor!

    Also, he can have a person of trust in with him at interviews (mil law, usually a senior or officer rank from his unit and preferably one he trusts). He does not have to say anything at all if he does not wish to.

    Bottom line.... get a solicitor, it might be money you don't really have but in the greater picture it makes sense if it can save trade pay and promotion!

    On the other hand - if he did do it, tough, take it on the chin for being a stupid fool!
  10. Totally agree with Gunner_REMF here. I'm not the biggest fan of the RMP's but it sounds to me like MB, her hubby and his mate have concocted this (ahem) "highly original" story in a vain attempt to enable hubby to be let off with what is not just a crime but a downright stupid and irresponsible thing to do. How would you feel MB if your two kids were the victims of the result of a drunk drivers loss of control of the vehicle??? Perhaps your hubby should have the common decency to own up to his actions and just be glad that there were no victims in this case!!!

    I do apologise in the unlikely event that your story is in fact true but I've been around the block enough times to know a blag when I see/hear one!!! Incidentally, your "chav text sk" (as Lord Flasheart put it) seriously fails to convince me of any genuinity whatsoever and I'm sure I'm not alone on this thought. It looks like you'll have to learn to drive (and stay sober while doing so) and cut down on the trips to McDonald's with the kids to offset hubby's fine!!!
  11. It may ven be true. Many years ago when I was based in Germany with 2RGJ and my brother was doing his basic training in Bovingdon I received a summons for a string of motoring offences commited by someone in Dorset who had given my name and all of my details.

    My defence was easy enough...I couldn't be in two places at once. Plod figured out quickly enough, without any help from me, who was in the area and would know all of my details. But they had no way of proving anything so the bugger got away with it.
  12. I dont know how true the story is as i wasnt with hubby when this happened all i have to go on is what he says not me! We were at the time seperated and he was living in the block thanks for all ur views and comments i do appreciate it, i just hope he gets what he deserves with the evidence they have if it turns out he did do it its not my problem but his and his alone. Thanks again
  13. if they didnt catch him driving they cant do him although he was over the limit; unless there were witnesses who can say they saw him from the moment the car came to a halt to the breathaliser test not consume alcohol.
  14. Ok, the process, as it was the RMP that have instigated the investigation the case will now go as follows:

    1. The RMP will complete their investigation and either issue an RMP Final Report or drop the case.

    2. If the RMP issue a Final report, this will go to the Commanding Officer and Legal Branch.

    3. Legal Branch will look at the case and issue advice to the Commanding Officer bassed on the evidence in the Final RMP Report, this could be to deal with the case himself/herself, Refer to Higher Authority (DCM, GCM through Bde Legal) or that there is no case to answer, he has 30 days in which to make up his mind.

    4. If the CO decides to deal Summarily (which is his right to do, although in a drink driving offence I think he/she would probebly refer) he only has powers of punishment at CO Level, he can also dismiss the case if he feels the evidence (RMP Final Report) is insufficiant to be "sure" of guilt.

    5. If the CO refers the case to higher authority (DCM, GCM) and the Army Prosecuting Authority decide that, on the evidence there is a case to answer, then the accused will face harsher powers of punishment at DCM, however APA (Army Prosecuting Authority) can decide that there is insufficiant evidence to prosecute and they to can drop the case at this point.

    6. It is worthy of note that at the point that the CO refers the case to higher authority the accused is then entitled to Legal Aid (your SSA can give you your options on this and instigate the required paperwork) and a lawyer can be provided for you at public expense.

    7. As for punishments, this all depends at what level your case goes in at, again, speak to your SSA, however, drink driving is not taken lightly at all.
  15. i think everyone else may be overlooking the important point raised in chuzu's post - they can't prove he was drink driving.

    in this country it is known as the "hip flask defence". i stopped someone who drove drunk through the main gate, racked it up to about 60mph down the main drag in camp and parked on the car park.

    i caught him walking away from the car, staggering drunk. because i did not actually see him leave the car, the policeman who attended said that even though he was obviously guilty as sin, nothing could be done. he just had to claim that since leaving the car he had consumed alcohol i.e. had a half litre of whisky in his coat and threw the bottle away after.

    he was breathalysed and had the shit scared out of him, but nothin could be done about the drink driving. he was done for speeding on camp and charged, but that was it.

    so from the story told - even if he was seen driving erratically; and even if he was subsequently breathalysed in his room and over the limit; if there is a gap without witnesses, he has no case to answer.

    that is not to say that your husband is not a stupid dangerous cunt for drink driving, and it's not to say he doesnt deserve to have the book thrown at him. and it CERTAINLY does not mean i believe the pile of shite he has told you.

    it's just the law, unfortunately. hopefully it will scare the stupid twat into not doing it again, and therefore potentially save peoples lives.