Killer drunken scum in court

"A PLYMOUTH man will today appear at court charged with causing the death of a cyclist by careless driving whilst under the influence of alcohol - and then fleeing the scene.

Sonny Richards of Wanstead Grove, Honicknowle, was arrested in the early hours of Saturday morning following an incident on the northbound stretch of Outland Road, near the footbridge by Devonport High School for Girls.

Police said a 34-year-old Plymouth man, cycling north on Outland Road, was in collision with a car at around 3am.

The road was closed between Segrave Road, opposite Plymouth Argyle's Home Park stadium, and Peverell Park Road for around nine hours as officers from the Serious Collisions Unit carried out their detailed investigation of the scene."

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Man-...ail/story.html

On 14/03/2016 07:48, Alycidon wrote:

"A PLYMOUTH man will today appear at court charged with causing the death of a cyclist by careless driving whilst under the influence of alcohol - and then fleeing the scene.

Sonny Richards of Wanstead Grove, Honicknowle, was arrested in the early hours of Saturday morning following an incident on the northbound stretch of Outland Road, near the footbridge by Devonport High School for Girls.

Police said a 34-year-old Plymouth man, cycling north on Outland Road, was in collision with a car at around 3am.

The road was closed between Segrave Road, opposite Plymouth Argyle's Home Park stadium, and Peverell Park Road for around nine hours as officers from the Serious Collisions Unit carried out their detailed investigation of the scene."

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Man-...ail/story.html

From what I can recall of the literature at the time (early to mid
seventies), arresting an alleged drink-driver hours after an incident in
which he is alleged to have been involved is fraught with difficulty,
not the least of which is the question of proving what the blood alcohol
level was at the time.

This case may revolve around a fatal accident, but most cases of
drink-driving prosecution don't. It would be a fearful situation if a
citizen could be hauled out of bed at 03:00 and charged with
drink-driving seven hours earlier whilst travelling home with alcohol he
had bought at a filling station and which he has consumed *after*
getting home.

On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 9:01:56 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/03/2016 07:48, Alycidon wrote:

"A PLYMOUTH man will today appear at court charged with causing the death of a cyclist by careless driving whilst under the influence of alcohol - and then fleeing the scene.

Sonny Richards of Wanstead Grove, Honicknowle, was arrested in the early hours of Saturday morning following an incident on the northbound stretch of Outland Road, near the footbridge by Devonport High School for Girls.

Police said a 34-year-old Plymouth man, cycling north on Outland Road, was in collision with a car at around 3am.

The road was closed between Segrave Road, opposite Plymouth Argyle's Home Park stadium, and Peverell Park Road for around nine hours as officers from the Serious Collisions Unit carried out their detailed investigation of the scene."

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Man-...ail/story.html

From what I can recall of the literature at the time (early to mid
seventies), arresting an alleged drink-driver hours after an incident in
which he is alleged to have been involved is fraught with difficulty,
not the least of which is the question of proving what the blood alcohol
level was at the time.

This case may revolve around a fatal accident, but most cases of
drink-driving prosecution don't. It would be a fearful situation if a
citizen could be hauled out of bed at 03:00 and charged with
drink-driving seven hours earlier whilst travelling home with alcohol he
had bought at a filling station and which he has consumed *after*
getting home.

If that is the case, I am convinced that the citizen in question could persuade a court that there is reasonable doubt as to their guilt. However, if an array of witnesses were to swear under oath that the citizen in question had been drinking heavily that evening, before embarking on a journey by motor vehicle, I am equally convinced that a court would dismiss the defence as balderdash.

On 15/03/2016 10:41, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 9:01:56 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/03/2016 07:48, Alycidon wrote:

"A PLYMOUTH man will today appear at court charged with causing the death of a cyclist by careless driving whilst under the influence of alcohol - and then fleeing the scene.

Sonny Richards of Wanstead Grove, Honicknowle, was arrested in the early hours of Saturday morning following an incident on the northbound stretch of Outland Road, near the footbridge by Devonport High School for Girls.

Police said a 34-year-old Plymouth man, cycling north on Outland Road, was in collision with a car at around 3am.

The road was closed between Segrave Road, opposite Plymouth Argyle's Home Park stadium, and Peverell Park Road for around nine hours as officers from the Serious Collisions Unit carried out their detailed investigation of the scene."

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Man-...ail/story.html

From what I can recall of the literature at the time (early to mid
seventies), arresting an alleged drink-driver hours after an incident in
which he is alleged to have been involved is fraught with difficulty,
not the least of which is the question of proving what the blood alcohol
level was at the time.

This case may revolve around a fatal accident, but most cases of
drink-driving prosecution don't. It would be a fearful situation if a
citizen could be hauled out of bed at 03:00 and charged with
drink-driving seven hours earlier whilst travelling home with alcohol he
had bought at a filling station and which he has consumed *after*
getting home.

If that is the case, I am convinced that the citizen in question could persuade a court that there is reasonable doubt as to their guilt. However, if an array of witnesses were to swear under oath that the citizen in question had been drinking heavily that evening, before embarking on a journey by motor vehicle, I am equally convinced that a court would dismiss the defence as balderdash.


I saw a car being driven very haphazardly early one morning (1am) the
car skidded and took out a traffic island and was weaving about, I
reported this to the Police, they went straight to his house and
breathalysed him and charged him with drink driving. He claimed not
guilty until minutes before his hearing, the thing that changed his mind
was that I turned up as a witness.

On 15/03/2016 10:41, Tom Crispin wrote:

On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 9:01:56 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/03/2016 07:48, Alycidon wrote:

"A PLYMOUTH man will today appear at court charged with causing the death of a cyclist by careless driving whilst under the influence of alcohol - and then fleeing the scene.

Sonny Richards of Wanstead Grove, Honicknowle, was arrested in the early hours of Saturday morning following an incident on the northbound stretch of Outland Road, near the footbridge by Devonport High School for Girls.

Police said a 34-year-old Plymouth man, cycling north on Outland Road, was in collision with a car at around 3am.

The road was closed between Segrave Road, opposite Plymouth Argyle's Home Park stadium, and Peverell Park Road for around nine hours as officers from the Serious Collisions Unit carried out their detailed investigation of the scene."

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Man-...ail/story.html

From what I can recall of the literature at the time (early to mid
seventies), arresting an alleged drink-driver hours after an incident in
which he is alleged to have been involved is fraught with difficulty,
not the least of which is the question of proving what the blood alcohol
level was at the time.

This case may revolve around a fatal accident, but most cases of
drink-driving prosecution don't. It would be a fearful situation if a
citizen could be hauled out of bed at 03:00 and charged with
drink-driving seven hours earlier whilst travelling home with alcohol he
had bought at a filling station and which he has consumed *after*
getting home.

If that is the case, I am convinced that the citizen in question could persuade a court that there is reasonable doubt as to their guilt.

Not only that, but no evidence *of* guilt.

However, if an array of witnesses were to swear under oath that the citizen in question had been drinking heavily that evening, before embarking on a journey by motor vehicle, I am equally convinced that a court would dismiss the defence as balderdash.

A breathalyser conviction requires proper, scientific, evidence.

The sort of eye-sight testimony evidence you describe, were it probative
(that's for the "lawyers" here), would never have required the passing
of the 1967 legislation. So do you think that mere eye-witness testimony
would work here when it didn't work in 1967?

On 15/03/2016 10:53, MrCheerful wrote:
On 15/03/2016 10:41, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 9:01:56 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/03/2016 07:48, Alycidon wrote:

"A PLYMOUTH man will today appear at court charged with causing the
death of a cyclist by careless driving whilst under the influence of
alcohol - and then fleeing the scene.

Sonny Richards of Wanstead Grove, Honicknowle, was arrested in the
early hours of Saturday morning following an incident on the
northbound stretch of Outland Road, near the footbridge by Devonport
High School for Girls.

Police said a 34-year-old Plymouth man, cycling north on Outland
Road, was in collision with a car at around 3am.

The road was closed between Segrave Road, opposite Plymouth Argyle's
Home Park stadium, and Peverell Park Road for around nine hours as
officers from the Serious Collisions Unit carried out their detailed
investigation of the scene."

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Man-...ail/story.html


From what I can recall of the literature at the time (early to mid
seventies), arresting an alleged drink-driver hours after an incident in
which he is alleged to have been involved is fraught with difficulty,
not the least of which is the question of proving what the blood alcohol
level was at the time.

This case may revolve around a fatal accident, but most cases of
drink-driving prosecution don't. It would be a fearful situation if a
citizen could be hauled out of bed at 03:00 and charged with
drink-driving seven hours earlier whilst travelling home with alcohol he
had bought at a filling station and which he has consumed *after*
getting home.

If that is the case, I am convinced that the citizen in question could
persuade a court that there is reasonable doubt as to their guilt.
However, if an array of witnesses were to swear under oath that the
citizen in question had been drinking heavily that evening, before
embarking on a journey by motor vehicle, I am equally convinced that a
court would dismiss the defence as balderdash.


I saw a car being driven very haphazardly early one morning (1am) the
car skidded and took out a traffic island and was weaving about, I
reported this to the Police, they went straight to his house and
breathalysed him and charged him with drink driving. He claimed not
guilty until minutes before his hearing, the thing that changed his mind
was that I turned up as a witness.

Did you see him drinking?

On 15/03/2016 11:56, JNugent wrote:
On 15/03/2016 10:53, MrCheerful wrote:
On 15/03/2016 10:41, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 9:01:56 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/03/2016 07:48, Alycidon wrote:

"A PLYMOUTH man will today appear at court charged with causing the
death of a cyclist by careless driving whilst under the influence of
alcohol - and then fleeing the scene.

Sonny Richards of Wanstead Grove, Honicknowle, was arrested in the
early hours of Saturday morning following an incident on the
northbound stretch of Outland Road, near the footbridge by Devonport
High School for Girls.

Police said a 34-year-old Plymouth man, cycling north on Outland
Road, was in collision with a car at around 3am.

The road was closed between Segrave Road, opposite Plymouth Argyle's
Home Park stadium, and Peverell Park Road for around nine hours as
officers from the Serious Collisions Unit carried out their detailed
investigation of the scene."

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Man-...ail/story.html



From what I can recall of the literature at the time (early to mid
seventies), arresting an alleged drink-driver hours after an
incident in
which he is alleged to have been involved is fraught with difficulty,
not the least of which is the question of proving what the blood
alcohol
level was at the time.

This case may revolve around a fatal accident, but most cases of
drink-driving prosecution don't. It would be a fearful situation if a
citizen could be hauled out of bed at 03:00 and charged with
drink-driving seven hours earlier whilst travelling home with
alcohol he
had bought at a filling station and which he has consumed *after*
getting home.

If that is the case, I am convinced that the citizen in question could
persuade a court that there is reasonable doubt as to their guilt.
However, if an array of witnesses were to swear under oath that the
citizen in question had been drinking heavily that evening, before
embarking on a journey by motor vehicle, I am equally convinced that a
court would dismiss the defence as balderdash.


I saw a car being driven very haphazardly early one morning (1am) the
car skidded and took out a traffic island and was weaving about, I
reported this to the Police, they went straight to his house and
breathalysed him and charged him with drink driving. He claimed not
guilty until minutes before his hearing, the thing that changed his mind
was that I turned up as a witness.

Did you see him drinking?


Not at all, just the crazy driving and crashing.

On 15/03/2016 12:06, MrCheerful wrote:

On 15/03/2016 11:56, JNugent wrote:
On 15/03/2016 10:53, MrCheerful wrote:
On 15/03/2016 10:41, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 9:01:56 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/03/2016 07:48, Alycidon wrote:

"A PLYMOUTH man will today appear at court charged with causing the
death of a cyclist by careless driving whilst under the influence of
alcohol - and then fleeing the scene.

Sonny Richards of Wanstead Grove, Honicknowle, was arrested in the
early hours of Saturday morning following an incident on the
northbound stretch of Outland Road, near the footbridge by Devonport
High School for Girls.

Police said a 34-year-old Plymouth man, cycling north on Outland
Road, was in collision with a car at around 3am.

The road was closed between Segrave Road, opposite Plymouth Argyle's
Home Park stadium, and Peverell Park Road for around nine hours as
officers from the Serious Collisions Unit carried out their detailed
investigation of the scene."

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Man-...ail/story.html

From what I can recall of the literature at the time (early to mid
seventies), arresting an alleged drink-driver hours after an
incident in which he is alleged to have been involved is fraught
with difficulty, not the least of which is the question of proving
what the blood alcohol level was at the time.
This case may revolve around a fatal accident, but most cases of
drink-driving prosecution don't. It would be a fearful situation if a
citizen could be hauled out of bed at 03:00 and charged with
drink-driving seven hours earlier whilst travelling home with
alcohol he had bought at a filling station and which he has consumed
*after* getting home.

If that is the case, I am convinced that the citizen in question could
persuade a court that there is reasonable doubt as to their guilt.
However, if an array of witnesses were to swear under oath that the
citizen in question had been drinking heavily that evening, before
embarking on a journey by motor vehicle, I am equally convinced that a
court would dismiss the defence as balderdash.

I saw a car being driven very haphazardly early one morning (1am) the
car skidded and took out a traffic island and was weaving about, I
reported this to the Police, they went straight to his house and
breathalysed him and charged him with drink driving. He claimed not
guilty until minutes before his hearing, the thing that changed his mind
was that I turned up as a witness.

Did you see him drinking?

Not at all, just the crazy driving and crashing.

Your testimony, then, would not and could not have proven that he had
been drinking before the accident? After all, it's not as though no-one
ever crashes - or drives badly - whilst stone-cold sober, is it?

But ss it happens, that lack of proof that doesn't matter in the case
you describe because he went "guilty", but the point still underlies the
principle.

An accident (or moving traffic offence) is the trigger which allows the
police to require a breath test. It is not, in itself, evidence of
drink-driving, only of bad driving. That's why the test is required. And
where any significant time passes after such an incident during which
the driver is at liberty, he is under no obligation to abstain from
alcohol. Indeed, after a shock like that, he might well decide that he
requires an anaesthetic dose of the stuff to calm his nerves (and
there's no law against him consuming it provided that he does not drive
thereafter until the alcohol has passed sufficiently out of his system).

Am I urging or condoning drink-driving?

Far from it.

But I am standing up for the principle that there can be no conviction
without either a guilty plea of (in this sort of case) scientific
evidence which proves the allegation ("drove with more than a certain
level of blood alcohol") beyond all reasonable doubt.

And hours later, when the person concerned has had plenty of opportunity
to drink alcohol *and* maintains that he has done so, the test cannot
prove the allegation beyond reasonable doubt for obvious reasons. Not
for nothing is a driver being tested asked when he had his last drink.
It is because recent consumption can make the reading look higher than
it really is.

What we must bear in mind is that there is no offence of being a driver
whilst having more than a permitted level of blood alcohol. The offence
is driving with more than the permitted level of blood alcohol. Any lax
police and court approach to this puts perfectly law-abiding persons at
risk of unjust prosecution and conviction.

It's one thing testing someone ten minutes after an incident. It's quite
another several hours later, as my 3am example showed.

On 15/03/2016 12:30, JNugent wrote:
On 15/03/2016 12:06, MrCheerful wrote:

On 15/03/2016 11:56, JNugent wrote:
On 15/03/2016 10:53, MrCheerful wrote:
On 15/03/2016 10:41, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 9:01:56 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/03/2016 07:48, Alycidon wrote:

"A PLYMOUTH man will today appear at court charged with causing the
death of a cyclist by careless driving whilst under the influence of
alcohol - and then fleeing the scene.

Sonny Richards of Wanstead Grove, Honicknowle, was arrested in the
early hours of Saturday morning following an incident on the
northbound stretch of Outland Road, near the footbridge by Devonport
High School for Girls.

Police said a 34-year-old Plymouth man, cycling north on Outland
Road, was in collision with a car at around 3am.

The road was closed between Segrave Road, opposite Plymouth Argyle's
Home Park stadium, and Peverell Park Road for around nine hours as
officers from the Serious Collisions Unit carried out their detailed
investigation of the scene."

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Man-...ail/story.html


From what I can recall of the literature at the time (early to mid
seventies), arresting an alleged drink-driver hours after an
incident in which he is alleged to have been involved is fraught
with difficulty, not the least of which is the question of proving
what the blood alcohol level was at the time.
This case may revolve around a fatal accident, but most cases of
drink-driving prosecution don't. It would be a fearful situation if a
citizen could be hauled out of bed at 03:00 and charged with
drink-driving seven hours earlier whilst travelling home with
alcohol he had bought at a filling station and which he has consumed
*after* getting home.

If that is the case, I am convinced that the citizen in question could
persuade a court that there is reasonable doubt as to their guilt.
However, if an array of witnesses were to swear under oath that the
citizen in question had been drinking heavily that evening, before
embarking on a journey by motor vehicle, I am equally convinced that a
court would dismiss the defence as balderdash.

I saw a car being driven very haphazardly early one morning (1am) the
car skidded and took out a traffic island and was weaving about, I
reported this to the Police, they went straight to his house and
breathalysed him and charged him with drink driving. He claimed not
guilty until minutes before his hearing, the thing that changed his
mind
was that I turned up as a witness.

Did you see him drinking?

Not at all, just the crazy driving and crashing.

Your testimony, then, would not and could not have proven that he had
been drinking before the accident? After all, it's not as though no-one
ever crashes - or drives badly - whilst stone-cold sober, is it?

But ss it happens, that lack of proof that doesn't matter in the case
you describe because he went "guilty", but the point still underlies the
principle.

An accident (or moving traffic offence) is the trigger which allows the
police to require a breath test. It is not, in itself, evidence of
drink-driving, only of bad driving. That's why the test is required. And
where any significant time passes after such an incident during which
the driver is at liberty, he is under no obligation to abstain from
alcohol. Indeed, after a shock like that, he might well decide that he
requires an anaesthetic dose of the stuff to calm his nerves (and
there's no law against him consuming it provided that he does not drive
thereafter until the alcohol has passed sufficiently out of his system).

Am I urging or condoning drink-driving?

Far from it.

But I am standing up for the principle that there can be no conviction
without either a guilty plea of (in this sort of case) scientific
evidence which proves the allegation ("drove with more than a certain
level of blood alcohol") beyond all reasonable doubt.

And hours later, when the person concerned has had plenty of opportunity
to drink alcohol *and* maintains that he has done so, the test cannot
prove the allegation beyond reasonable doubt for obvious reasons. Not
for nothing is a driver being tested asked when he had his last drink.
It is because recent consumption can make the reading look higher than
it really is.

What we must bear in mind is that there is no offence of being a driver
whilst having more than a permitted level of blood alcohol. The offence
is driving with more than the permitted level of blood alcohol. Any lax
police and court approach to this puts perfectly law-abiding persons at
risk of unjust prosecution and conviction.

It's one thing testing someone ten minutes after an incident. It's quite
another several hours later, as my 3am example showed.

The Police got to him within a half hour and he did claim to have gone
in and had a drink. He has reappeared several times over the years on
drink driving charges, so has learnt nothing.

On 15/03/2016 12:58, MrCheerful wrote:

On 15/03/2016 12:30, JNugent wrote:
On 15/03/2016 12:06, MrCheerful wrote:
On 15/03/2016 11:56, JNugent wrote:
On 15/03/2016 10:53, MrCheerful wrote:
On 15/03/2016 10:41, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 9:01:56 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/03/2016 07:48, Alycidon wrote:

"A PLYMOUTH man will today appear at court charged with causing the
death of a cyclist by careless driving whilst under the
influence of
alcohol - and then fleeing the scene.

Sonny Richards ... was arrested in the
early hours of Saturday morning following an incident on the
northbound stretch of Outland Road, near the footbridge by
Devonport High School for Girls.
Police said a 34-year-old Plymouth man, cycling north on Outland
Road, was in collision with a car at around 3am.
The road was closed between Segrave Road, opposite Plymouth
Argyle's Home Park stadium, and Peverell Park Road for around
nine hours as officers from the Serious Collisions Unit carried
out their detailed investigation of the scene."
http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Man-...ail/story.html

From what I can recall of the literature at the time (early to mid
seventies), arresting an alleged drink-driver hours after an
incident in which he is alleged to have been involved is fraught
with difficulty, not the least of which is the question of proving
what the blood alcohol level was at the time.
This case may revolve around a fatal accident, but most cases of
drink-driving prosecution don't. It would be a fearful situation
if a
citizen could be hauled out of bed at 03:00 and charged with
drink-driving seven hours earlier whilst travelling home with
alcohol he had bought at a filling station and which he has consumed
*after* getting home.

If that is the case, I am convinced that the citizen in question
could persuade a court that there is reasonable doubt as to their
guilt. However, if an array of witnesses were to swear under oath
that the citizen in question had been drinking heavily that evening,
before embarking on a journey by motor vehicle, I am equally convinced
that a court would dismiss the defence as balderdash.

I saw a car being driven very haphazardly early one morning (1am) the
car skidded and took out a traffic island and was weaving about, I
reported this to the Police, they went straight to his house and
breathalysed him and charged him with drink driving. He claimed not
guilty until minutes before his hearing, the thing that changed his
mind was that I turned up as a witness.

Did you see him drinking?

Not at all, just the crazy driving and crashing.

Your testimony, then, would not and could not have proven that he had
been drinking before the accident? After all, it's not as though no-one
ever crashes - or drives badly - whilst stone-cold sober, is it?
But as it happens, that lack of proof that doesn't matter in the case
you describe because he went "guilty", but the point still underlies the
principle.
An accident (or moving traffic offence) is the trigger which allows the
police to require a breath test. It is not, in itself, evidence of
drink-driving, only of bad driving. That's why the test is required. And
where any significant time passes after such an incident during which
the driver is at liberty, he is under no obligation to abstain from
alcohol. Indeed, after a shock like that, he might well decide that he
requires an anaesthetic dose of the stuff to calm his nerves (and
there's no law against him consuming it provided that he does not drive
thereafter until the alcohol has passed sufficiently out of his system).
Am I urging or condoning drink-driving?
Far from it.
But I am standing up for the principle that there can be no conviction
without either a guilty plea of (in this sort of case) scientific
evidence which proves the allegation ("drove with more than a certain
level of blood alcohol") beyond all reasonable doubt.
And hours later, when the person concerned has had plenty of opportunity
to drink alcohol *and* maintains that he has done so, the test cannot
prove the allegation beyond reasonable doubt for obvious reasons. Not
for nothing is a driver being tested asked when he had his last drink.
It is because recent consumption can make the reading look higher than
it really is.
What we must bear in mind is that there is no offence of being a driver
whilst having more than a permitted level of blood alcohol. The offence
is driving with more than the permitted level of blood alcohol. Any lax
police and court approach to this puts perfectly law-abiding persons at
risk of unjust prosecution and conviction.
It's one thing testing someone ten minutes after an incident. It's quite
another several hours later, as my 3am example showed.

The Police got to him within a half hour and he did claim to have gone
in and had a drink.

That's different, of course.

But there is definitely a school of thought to the effect that *if* you
can get home quickly enough, a few - maybe even more than a few -
double-JDs is just the thing for calming frayed nerves after a
(relatively minor) traffic accident. And for relaxing one sufficiently
that considered answers may be given to any uniformed police officers
who come to call.

There's always the possibility of a charge for "leaving the scene" of
course, but that may not be uppermost in the citizen's mind in the
aftermath of a scare like that. And there are defences against it in any
case.

He has reappeared several times over the years on
drink driving charges, so has learnt nothing.

So it would seem.