Cipriani clearly not guilty

[Mellsblue]

In his defence, I can understand why he choose to drive. We all not what happened last time he tried to take public transport.










I'll get my coat.

[Digby]

In his defence, I can understand why he choose to drive. We all not what happened last time he tried to take public transport.

Actually he was trying to avoid public transport then too, it's been a fail on both occasions.

[Digby]

The Standard is reporting that the case against Cipriani is 'on the brink of collapse' as his loophole lawyer has brought into question the readings from the breathalyser, though I thought there was also a blood test, and further the standard standard of the Standard is appalling. Also worth noting that Cipriani couldn't even be bothered to wear a tie to court, which by itself should probably see him sentenced to 20 years, his lawyer too just to be safe.

[Mellsblue]

The Standard is reporting that the case against Cipriani is 'on the brink of collapse' as his loophole lawyer has brought into question the readings from the breathalyser, though I thought there was also a blood test, and further the standard standard of the Standard is appalling. Also worth noting that Cipriani couldn't even be bothered to wear a tie to court, which by itself should probably see him sentenced to 20 years, his lawyer too just to be safe.

The Times report that the technicality is that an officer at the station allowed Cipriani to go outside to clear his head therefore delaying a breathalyser test for 40/50 mins. It would be the most absurd of technicalities were it to prevail.

[Tigger]

I am very unhappy with this....Danny was nearly twice over the limit. Let's leave it there. Never mind the procedure. ...He drove whilst nearly twice over the limit. If he gets away with it I will be leading the lynching party....

[Lizard]

I'm not familiar with the British system but presumably, if the police are basing their case on an evidential breath test, they cannot change horses mid-stream and then rely on the blood test. Acknowledging that the breath test was not sufficient to secure a conviction might cast reasonable doubt on the whole case. Evidential breath alcohol machines are complicated, finely calibrated devices that need to be used properly.

As to the "technicality", the police will have very carefully written procedures and training. If an officer fails to follow the proper procedure then the evidence is compromised and there is room for doubt. If that is the case here, then the police should be criticised for fucking up a fairly straightforward and standard part of their job. You shouldn't criticise a defendant or a lawyer for pointing out that the police didn't get it right. It's not a "technicality". It's a fundamental part of keeping the coercive forces of the government honest.

It's not actually a huge step from disregarding proper alcohol testing procedure to disregarding other procedures like allowing access to a lawyer and not beating confessions out of people.

[Puja]

I'm not familiar with the British system but presumably, if the police are basing their case on an evidential breath test, they cannot change horses mid-stream and then rely on the blood test. Acknowledging that the breath test was not sufficient to secure a conviction might cast reasonable doubt on the whole case. Evidential breath alcohol machines are complicated, finely calibrated devices that need to be used properly.

As to the "technicality", the police will have very carefully written procedures and training. If an officer fails to follow the proper procedure then the evidence is compromised and there is room for doubt. If that is the case here, then the police should be criticised for fucking up a fairly straightforward and standard part of their job. You shouldn't criticise a defendant or a lawyer for pointing out that the police didn't get it right. It's not a "technicality". It's a fundamental part of keeping the coercive forces of the government honest.

It's not actually a huge step from disregarding proper alcohol testing procedure to disregarding other procedures like allowing access to a lawyer and not beating confessions out of people.

While what you've said has great merit, this is not about ensuring standards of policework, but about a rich man using expensive lawyers to get him out of punishment for something he clearly and obviously did. I've got no problems with the police facing punishment if they've botched simple procedure, but I do have an issue with the rich guy getting away scott free because he could afford lawyers good enough to find the technicality.

Puja

[Eugene Wrayburn]

I'm not familiar with the British system but presumably, if the police are basing their case on an evidential breath test, they cannot change horses mid-stream and then rely on the blood test. Acknowledging that the breath test was not sufficient to secure a conviction might cast reasonable doubt on the whole case. Evidential breath alcohol machines are complicated, finely calibrated devices that need to be used properly.

As to the "technicality", the police will have very carefully written procedures and training. If an officer fails to follow the proper procedure then the evidence is compromised and there is room for doubt. If that is the case here, then the police should be criticised for fucking up a fairly straightforward and standard part of their job. You shouldn't criticise a defendant or a lawyer for pointing out that the police didn't get it right. It's not a "technicality". It's a fundamental part of keeping the coercive forces of the government honest.

It's not actually a huge step from disregarding proper alcohol testing procedure to disregarding other procedures like allowing access to a lawyer and not beating confessions out of people.

While what you've said has great merit, this is not about ensuring standards of policework, but about a rich man using expensive lawyers to get him out of punishment for something he clearly and obviously did. I've got no problems with the police facing punishment if they've botched simple procedure, but I do have an issue with the rich guy getting away scott free because he could afford lawyers good enough to find the technicality.

Puja

He didn't clearly and obviously do it if they didn't follow the correct breathalyser procedure in a significant way. That's what the procedure is there for: to make sure the results are reliable. That's what all police procedures are for. It's not a technicality and it's frankly not difficult to find - they've got to fill in a book as to the steps they took and most pupil barristers will chalk up at least 1 drink drive acquittal in their time. The narrative of "he's only getting off because he's rich" is thoroughly misplaced. If wrong procedure leads to an acquittal then despite the rather more considerable resources of the government an innocent man has been fortunate enough to have representation which has been astute enough to demonstrate his innocence.

[Lizard]

Puja, assuming that we've got the facts right (I've not read any media on this) it would not take an expensive or even especially competent lawyer to pick up a mistake like police not following proper alcohol testing procedure. It is an absolutely bog standard way to defend an excess breath alcohol charge. I was taught it in law school - in a paper in which I got my worst law grade as it happens yet I still remember it because it is so utterly basic.

It's not a case of needing to cleverly cross-examine a forensic scientist with a PhD in DNA analysis. You just need to ask plod if he followed the instructions.

(The other standard one is to check that the machine has been recently calibrated properly. This isn't often over looked but if it has been then you're home.)

The other point here is that (again, as far as I know) the police have chosen to prosecute only the excess breath alcohol charge. The facts described here would seem to support charges of reckless or dangerous driving causing injury (assuming your criminal laws are about the same as NZ's). If so, then the likely reason is that proving excess breath alcohol is so easy because all you have to do is follow the procedure and read the number at the end.

EDIT: also, see the preceding post.

[ad_tigger]

It's always good to remember the venn diagram of law and ethics

o o

[Puja]

I stand corrected. I was under the impression that Cipriani's lawyer was doing something particularly clever that would only be attainable by a good/expensive lawyer, rather than something that any muppet could do. I'll defer to those who know better.

Puja

[Spiffy]

Puja, assuming that we've got the facts right (I've not read any media on this) it would not take an expensive or even especially competent lawyer to pick up a mistake like police not following proper alcohol testing procedure. It is an absolutely bog standard way to defend an excess breath alcohol charge. I was taught it in law school - in a paper in which I got my worst law grade as it happens yet I still remember it because it is so utterly basic.

It's not a case of needing to cleverly cross-examine a forensic scientist with a PhD in DNA analysis. You just need to ask plod if he followed the instructions.

(The other standard one is to check that the machine has been recently calibrated properly. This isn't often over looked but if it has been then you're home.)

The other point here is that (again, as far as I know) the police have chosen to prosecute only the excess breath alcohol charge. The facts described here would seem to support charges of reckless or dangerous driving causing injury (assuming your criminal laws are about the same as NZ's). If so, then the likely reason is that proving excess breath alcohol is so easy because all you have to do is follow the procedure and read the number at the end.

EDIT: also, see the preceding post.

I'm sure, with respect to the letter of the law, you are right. But then that should apply in every case where a machine is used to assess any situation (traffic lights, speeding radar guns etc...). I don't know how often such machines are calibrated or what is the acceptable degree of tolerance on their readout - plus or minus what percent? This seems to be an almost automatic get off for many offenders if the defence argument stands. Yes - some plod seems to have screwed up with procedure too, so Cipriani may walk on the combination of both counts - flawed procedure plus possible inaccurate readout (the latter almost imposible to prove one way or another). Readers will draw their own conclusions on the truth of the matter, based on current legal wranglings and Danny's history, and so will the England management. Whatever the outcome, I doubt he will get another crack at an England shirt.

[Lizard]

In terms of the practical outcome you may well be right.

Legally though, it's not just a matter of Plod screwing up procedure, it's Her Majesty the Queen failing to discharge the onus of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt thus allowing the presumption of innocence to stand.

[Digby]

Why would the blood test not be part of the case? What's the advantage to the prosecution for omitting it?

[Nightynight]

Why would the blood test not be part of the case? What's the advantage to the prosecution for omitting it?

Dunno, the suspicion would be maybe it didn't produce the same result as the breath test, might explain why his legal advice suggested pleading not guilty.

Argue that the blood test was the real result and the breath test was a screw up

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Why would the blood test not be part of the case? What's the advantage to the prosecution for omitting it?

When charging you charge either breath or blood, not both. I don't know if there was a blood test - there rarely is if the reading is over 60 and there's no reason to think the mchine is wrong. Indeed i dont think there's a power to require a sample in such a case. If a blood sample was required by the police then it may well be inadmissible. Furthemore it might be indicative that they realised that they'd cocked up the breath test procedure.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Puja, assuming that we've got the facts right (I've not read any media on this) it would not take an expensive or even especially competent lawyer to pick up a mistake like police not following proper alcohol testing procedure. It is an absolutely bog standard way to defend an excess breath alcohol charge. I was taught it in law school - in a paper in which I got my worst law grade as it happens yet I still remember it because it is so utterly basic.

It's not a case of needing to cleverly cross-examine a forensic scientist with a PhD in DNA analysis. You just need to ask plod if he followed the instructions.

(The other standard one is to check that the machine has been recently calibrated properly. This isn't often over looked but if it has been then you're home.)

The other point here is that (again, as far as I know) the police have chosen to prosecute only the excess breath alcohol charge. The facts described here would seem to support charges of reckless or dangerous driving causing injury (assuming your criminal laws are about the same as NZ's). If so, then the likely reason is that proving excess breath alcohol is so easy because all you have to do is follow the procedure and read the number at the end.

EDIT: also, see the preceding post.

I'm sure, with respect to the letter of the law, you are right. But then that should apply in every case where a machine is used to assess any situation (traffic lights, speeding radar guns etc...). I don't know how often such machines are calibrated or what is the acceptable degree of tolerance on their readout - plus or minus what percent? This seems to be an almost automatic get off for many offenders if the defence argument stands. Yes - some plod seems to have screwed up with procedure too, so Cipriani may walk on the combination of both counts - flawed procedure plus possible inaccurate readout (the latter almost imposible to prove one way or another). Readers will draw their own conclusions on the truth of the matter, based on current legal wranglings and Danny's history, and so will the England management. Whatever the outcome, I doubt he will get another crack at an England shirt.

Traffic lights don't require calibration, but yes speed guns and other such measuring machies do require calibration and have accuracy parameters and if outside this then there will be an acquittal.

as for selecting him if acquitted, if they want him they'll select him and so they should as he wouldn't have been convicted of anything and it isn't an error of judgement to be wrongly arrested.

[Lizard]

In NZ, if you fail breath you have the right to demand a blood test, in which case the breath evidence is void (if I recall correctly). I think the police can require blood if you can't complete a breath test.

[Digby]

Why would the blood test not be part of the case? What's the advantage to the prosecution for omitting it?

Dunno, the suspicion would be maybe it didn't produce the same result as the breath test, might explain why his legal advice suggested pleading not guilty.

Argue that the blood test was the real result and the breath test was a screw up

If the blood test didn't return a positive surely they'd have to turn that over to the defence team and it'd be game over for any prosecution, it'd be quite shocking if the state recorded a negative blood test and then weren't obligated to reveal such. I see Eugene noting one is charged with a failure of either/or, which seems odd when both might exist but then this is the law, it's just I do seem to recall Cips had asked for a blood test having failed the breathalyser - that last might be a false recollection or simply based on some reporting/internet gibberish

[Digby]

In NZ, if you fail breath you have the right to demand a blood test, in which case the breath evidence is void (if I recall correctly). I think the police can require blood if you can't complete a breath test.

Why would one set of evidence be void if there's another piece of evidence?

[Which Tyler]

Thread seems a particularly good example of why everyone hates lawyers.

Looks like Cips may well be found "not guilty"; and so the guilty man goes free.
I utterly fail to see how giving Cip's liver enough time to remove another unit of alcohol from his system, and him STILL being nearly double the driving limit means that he's an innocent man. Eye witness testiments, and an admission of having been drinking* be damned (Yes, I've been drinking, Yes I've been driving, No I haven't been drink-driving - yeah, that's convincing).

Cops cocked up - and that is bad. A guilty man walks free is also bad.

It's always good to remember the venn diagram of law and ethics

I assume that any contact between the 2 circles are entirely incidental, and likely the result of official incompetence.

[Mellsblue]

Thread seems a particularly good example of why everyone hates lawyers.

Why is the lawyer's fault? He's simply applying the law and defending his client, ie he's doing his job.

Blame the cop who messed up a stunning simple procedure.

[Nightynight]

In NZ, if you fail breath you have the right to demand a blood test, in which case the breath evidence is void (if I recall correctly). I think the police can require blood if you can't complete a breath test.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road ... iving/#a07

[Digby]

I utterly fail to see how giving Cip's liver enough time to remove another unit of alcohol from his system, and him STILL being nearly double the driving limit means that he's an innocent man.

There might be something to admire in Cips using the police officer perhaps trying to go easy on him as evidence he was unfairly treated thus neatly screwing over the person who perhaps unwisely tried to help him. After all, who wants people to stand up and be responsible for their own actions when they can obfuscate the truth and cling to some messed up sense of entitlement that the rules don't apply to them whilst risking other people getting hurt and then putting the blame onto others?

[Lizard]

In NZ, if you fail breath you have the right to demand a blood test, in which case the breath evidence is void (if I recall correctly). I think the police can require blood if you can't complete a breath test.

Why would one set of evidence be void if there's another piece of evidence?

The flippant answer is because that is what section 77 of the Land Transport Act 1998 says (NZ-centric reference).

The reason it says that is because the longstanding policy behind criminal law is that there is a presumption of innocence and it's better that many guilty people get off, rather than 1 innocent person gets convicted. (If you've got a problem with that then take it up with civilised society and centuries of established rights against the state).

Imagine if it was otherwise, and the police could charge you with excess breath alcohol when they could not charge you with excess blood alcohol? There'd be a pretty strong incentive for Plod to fuck up the blood testing and deny a citizen's right to the more accurate testing.