Failure to Provide a Specimen of Breath | Traffic Loophole Series e.1 | BlackBeltBarrister
VloĆŸit
- Äas pĆidĂĄn 29. 08. 2024
- This is the story of a case from 1980 that you may consider a loophole in road traffic law for failure to provide a specimen of breath for analysis. If you enjoy this series let me know and I can do many more.
Fire your questions here: @blackbeltsecrets
For direct messages go here:
/ blackbeltbarrister
đ Become a channel member to access stripes and perks!
/ @blackbeltbarrister
MY CAMERA GEAR
đ„ Big Camera amzn.to/3tW8nPU
đ„ Small Camera amzn.to/2RB7ez9
đ RODE VIDEOMic Pro+ amzn.to/2QCJURi
Gobe ND Filter amzn.to/2R3eEuA
Neewer Ring Light amzn.to/3aOkLtT
Switch Pod amzn.to/3sZb8yA
JOBY Tripod amzn.to/3dXJYDT
External Media Drive amzn.to/3uxNDOQ đ Brilliant contract law book:
amzn.to/2PHC2O1 đ Excellent book with an overview of criminal law:
amzn.to/3gTPEAV đ Learn more about trespass and tort law:
amzn.to/32N6TLS
(Affiliate link)
LAW FAQS
âą Common Law
CONSUMER LAW PLAYLIST:
âą Consumer Law
TREE LAW PLAYLIST:
âą Tree Law Miniseries
ROAD TRAFFIC LAW PLAYLIST:
âą Road Traffic Law
FAMILY LAW PLAYLIST:
âą Family Law
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER:
I'm a Barrister of England and Wales.
Videos for educational guidance only, Always seek advice before taking action. Videos on my channel are not legal advice and should not be taken as such. I accept no liability for any reliance placed upon the content of these videos or references, therein.
#blackbeltbarrister #lawyer #barrister
Description contains affiliate links. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Description may contain affiliate or sponsored links, for which we may receive commissions or payment.
They often change the law or apply it differently. It will probably have cost the defendant a lot of money, time and worry. The best advice don't drink and drive.
The best advice you would ever receive.
Who remembers the tale of the Australian lads leaving the pub? Went something like this. The group bomb burst from the pub, the last one out had difficulty in the car park, wrong indicators, crunching the gears, hopeless reversing, a stalled engine etcetera. At the road junction he indicated right and turned left. The unmarked police car crew got quite excited, stopped him and breathalysed him. They cuffed him and this bust was considered a dead cert, the breath test was negative. They took him 40 miles to the station for a second breath test, and a blood test. Again negative. So they returned him to his vehicle, on route they asked off the record what he was doing? He said he was on duty that night eh what yea? Yea .. I was the designated decoy.. cheers mate!
Obstructing Police
@@geordiewishart1683 That's not what that is. The officers could have pulled over any of the drivers, but they chose him. That was their choice. The only law he could have broken is maybe "Driving without due care and attention" or a similliar driving offence.
So it aided drunk drivers to go unchallenged. Nice one, let's hope they didn't knock anyone over.
They sound like complete c***s
Perverting the course of justice.
The law is just like a game with verdicts bearing little relation to guilt or innocence.
The law is a set of rules. Booth sides must abide by them.
OH mate thank you so much for your advice in your videos you open up all the mysteries of traffic law in a frank and down to earth way 10/10 you are a fantastic bloke many thanks
Where can one buy a police keep out sign?
No, that's not the case.
@@hereandthere4763 what about theMcCanns an co 4 child neglect. Never questioned by uk police.
Prince Andrew no police action taken. Princess Diana death letter. Prince Charles never questioned etc etc etc
I could see that coming. There was a recent story where officers attempted to enforce a section of the Road Traffic Act on a gentleman whilst his vehicle was parked on _his own driveway_ .
Very interesting verdict and explanation. It isnât applicable in Scotland though as firstly trespass doesnât exist criminally in Scotland with very minor exceptions and police officers in Scotland can actually force entry into a property if they have the belief the driver was under the influence. Paton v Dunn 2012 was the most recent ruling. It was interesting that the officers allowed him to go inside and appears they were doing him a favour. In Scotland, Jeffrey v MacNeil 1976 determined if the driver refused to wait, they could be arrested.
When I did my GCSE law course my first court trial I had to watch from the gallery, was a drunk driving charge in Tunbridge Wells. Other than his proud mum, I was the only one in the gallery.
Is it just me but when a police car follows you in normal traffic in general I automatically feel nervous đ
Because the police frequently bully and act illegally and happily lie in court, it makes nervous just to see one, never mind anything to do with driving. Magistrates are well known for indulging the police, although tis video shows an exception.
Even law abiding and respectable people can be at risk because of bad police who cannot be held to account.
@@Must_not_say_that Someone sounds like they were given a speeding ticket many moons ago
@@glenmurray7699 I have seen and experienced too many instances of bullying by the police and perjury and seeking to pervert the course of justice by the police and not just driving offences.
Yes there are some decent police but, as we have seen in recent news, the generality are not good.
It would be simple and easy to reform the police and eliminate much of their bad and dishonest behaviour just by having all complaints handled by an independant body.
Problem solved.
@@Must_not_say_that It's not really the generality is it. The recent news stories are still a very very minor population of the police force considering there is over 150,000 officers in the UK. All of the live saving work carried out on a daily basis rarely gets noticed but of course all of the negative press is the first to reach the headlines. Most complaints made to the police are normally malicious/unreasonable and that's why the IOPCC are there for the real matters who are independant!
@@glenmurray7699 If it is as you say there can be no objection to all complaints being handled by an independent body.
Is it not obvious to you that as a matter of principle when their trustworthiness is in question they should not be allowed to decide for themselves??? And especially when they are in a unique positon to use their position to take reprisals!
Presumably you must be one of them!
Mr. BBB, how about a similar case, but in relation to cannabis? For example; a knock on the door, with the Police officers claiming that they want you to open the door to talk about; âSomethingâ. Then climbing in through the window as you tell them to âGet off my property â. Yet they enter regardless of your command to them to leave the property?
I got stitched up badly with failing to provide!
I wasnât even driving and I wasnât stopped under the road traffic act!
I was not in a vehicle and I had no car keys on me!
I was arrested under suspicion of ABH and taken to the police station
When I was in front of the sergeants desk!
He asked what Iâd been arrested for?
To which the arresting replied! Suspicions ABH oh and drink driving!! I said sorry ? What are you talking about? Drink driving?
Iâve not been drink driving
Then another officer about 20 ft away going through a filing cabinet! Sarcastically said âBreathalyserâ
And I said Iâm not giving you a breathalyser!
They said itâs ok the cctv will prove you were driving! I said no it wonât because I wasnât
They never said I was committing any offence by not providing!
It was just left!
Then I returned after being bailed
And there was no evidence of ABH no evidence of me driving
But they said we are pursuing the failing to provide
They dragged it out for 15 months
And I was denied legal aid! Then they gave me 10 points and fined me ÂŁ758
Iâm a truck driver and itâs ruined my life!
10 points stay on your licence for 11 years!
Itâs destroyed my chances of getting a job I want and Iâve been exploited by wankers that have taken me on and used the points against me!
Iâve never put a foot wrong driving and Iâve got about 3 years left till the points clear!
But what scumbags the police are!
Complete lies
Private property law and implied rights of entry and their revocations worth remembering....
The exception to this is if the requirement is following an RTC as police have a power to enter in order to make the requirement under s6E of the RTA and to arrest under s6D of the RTA.
Another great video, thank you
Interesting storey, thanks for sharing.
Very interesting case law
Interesting as always. (This case reminds me of Nick Freeman - âMr. Loopholeâ - the celebrity defence lawyer who prides himself on his ability to get celebs off the hook with technicalities specialising in traffic and speeding offences. And why not..? Thatâs what he gets paid for - being a competent lawyer.)
Yeah try that defence yourself, it only risks with them because different rules apply
Blokes a legend. Lets help the rich and famous dodge the law and the oiks can make do with the bog standard lawyer. Apparently liberty comes with a price.
@@StoutProper No, the same rules apply to all of us. It's just that most of us can't afford a lawyer good enough to find the right rules to bring up.
It only works when the cops have done something wrong. If the cops were careful with their admin then youâll be wasting your money with those defence lawyers.
I actually know one case where the lawyer said to the defendant he had nothing to worry about and took the defendants money. Then on the day of the court hearing the lawyer actually asked to change the plea to guilty. The defendant paid him for nothing. The only crook in court that day was the robbing lawyer.
Imagine waking up and becoming a study of case law. The cop had no idea.
Interesting. I, too, hope this could not work today. DUI is mighty dangerous.
DUI of drinking is bad dui weed or cocain does not affect my driving but for ck law system owned by 1% now 2021 hence so much of police laws
It always amazes me just how much police time, and solicitors time, and judges time, and huge amounts of money is wasted daily on minor silly cases such as this. Yet so many very serious crimes are often completely ignored.
It's because other cases hang on it
It's through cases such as this that legal precedents are set. The decision to go ahead with the prosecution will have been to test that point of law.
There is no law that is perfectly written, or doesn't need modification through stated cases.
@@robertstallard7836 except for for ten commandments
@@davet9900 Thou Shalt Not Steal.
Whole tomes have been written on the legal cases relating to theft!
they're usually easy convictions, there's no real work involved in getting a conviction and raising the stats positively.
So, had they arrested him for section 4 RTA rather than request a breath sample, there wouldnât have been an issue. The evidential breath test provided in custody would have been admissible. Interesting.
Thatâs what iâm thinking! Problem solved.
I was done for failing to provide a specimen but was walking up the road the said I had been driving but had no keys got 6 points and a fine was this right??? I followed solicitor advice to plead guilty but looking back should of went not guilty
Video idea, using a phone to pay at a drive-thru. Lots of scare stories about it in the media, but I can find any cases of anyone ever being done for it. I also cant imagine the police giving a damn either way.
Doesn't the ban on using the phone while driving only apply on public roads?
25 years ago I got a 12 month ban an a ÂŁ 300 fine for failure to provide a specimen of breath. There was never anything on my criminal record regarding the incident. Happy to say I never continued driving as I prefer a joint an a beer.
Well, you could still be arrested for driving under the influence of an illegal substance, what's more is, you should.
@@honestchris7472 ill drive stoned but not drunk x
@@hhuodod2209 then you would be just as dangerous to other people as if you were drunk. What would you say if someone using drugs killed a member of your family? oh never mind, they were only stoned.
It`s the police officer resonsibility to pull the driver over when the offence happened, not follow him/her. Had they pulled the driver over there wold have been no problem..
Friend was done on his driveway.
They were probably running the car through PNC etc, as well as seeing what his manner of driving was before stopping him.
They have to follow first. There are many reason to follow first, one being that it could involve an undercover assignment and if the officers were to react right away would ruien a large operation.
@@robertstallard7836 Not in 1980?
@@Tom_Hadler Yes - PNC had been around since 1974.
Fascinating and so many comments. I'm curious if the loophole has been closed by any subsequent revisions?
I don't drink and drive but very interesting! Thankyou for sharing,
This loophole has been closed now by way of RTA 1988 and S17 PACE, power to enter and arrest for S4 unfit. This stated case though, was pre PACE.
There is still no power of entry to demand a breath test.
The police dont 'need' a roadside breath test at all, its only an 'indication' that an offence has been committed.
What they should have done was arrest him straight away on suspicion, they would of had a power of entry then for a lawful arrest.
@@MatthewRSimpson of course but there is power to enter and arrest.
@@getaswordactual8766 Yes, there is a power to enter for arrest, just not to request a breath test.
@@MatthewRSimpson I know... perhaps didn't quite explain my first comment so well đ§
Cool! I mean I don't drink any alcohol whatsoever, but this is still interesting!
Edit: 1:11 - That is a gold Sekonda Classique skeleton dial wind up pocket watch. I actually have one.. đŹ
Thank you, but don't get stopped for drinking PG tips whilst driving lol
Fascinating case, thanx for posting. Could the accused not have complained of false imprisonment after being placed in handcuffs and taken to a police station where he would have been prevented from leaving?
I'm thinking he may not push the boat out that far đ know when you have beaten the system and obviously move đđthey'll be watching
@@robmarrin6720 That's presumably the perfect time to go for the grand slam?!
@@PeterDBlackburn thank you for this info x.
Being in road safety, one of my pet hates is bad road safety and on private roads. I don't feel safe on private roads at all. Fortunately our neighbour did get caught drunk driving by police before he got into our prvate farm driveway in Kent. He was a builder, lost his job, divorced, lost his home and dog. just be chose to drink drive. The consequences of drunk driving can be astronomical
Don't drink and drive, that leads to death and life changing injuries. Thank for the insight.
There is no proof, or insinuation, that the driver was driving whilst over the prescribed limit.
I have just discovered your CZcams channel and found it very interesting. I have added you on my Facebook and Instagram. This is really great work you do for people. Thank you so much Sir.
Could an arguement not be made, that when the officers were invited into his property to observe the phonecall, they were no longer tresspassers?
Who said they were invited inside?
@@leonardmcdermott7703 not inside.
If you invite somebody onto your property, they are not trespassing at that time. However, such an invitation can be revoked. If you are asked to leave and you don't, you're trespassing. A common case of this is shopping centres. The shopping centre is private property but, ordinarily, the owners allow the public to come onto the property during opening hours. However, if they or their agents (i.e., security guards) ask you to leave and you don't, you're trespassing.
@@leonardmcdermott7703 The police said they wanted to come into the house to observe the phone call and he accepted that. That counts as an invitation, even though it was initiated by the police rather than the defendant.
@@beeble2003 No, nothing that happened after the defendant revoked their right of access counts. It's fruit of a poison tree.
I don't drink and drive, but if I did, I have limited lung capacity so I have always been afraid of these tests if ever requested.
Same here mate.
You'll be fine. You have to be a one-lunged, asthmatic grandmother not to be able to provide at the roadside.
If you couldn't, then all that would happen is that you'd be arrested for 'fail to provide' and then required to give blood at the station. Providing that comes back under the limit then you've nothing to worry about!
you'll be fine, even if you have the lung capacity of an asthmatic hamster. The newer roadside devices don't require that much breath. If you failed that, you could offer a blood sample for the evidentiary test.
The Road Traffic Act has been updated since this case. If the same circumstances arose today the officers could simply arrest the driver under Section 4 RTA 1988 which has a power of entry attached to it. The reasonable grounds to suspect driving while unfit through drink or drugs would be his manner of driving/smell of intoxicating liquor/admitted drinking/avoidance of preliminary breath test. Loophole closed, drink driver getting the bus.
But if you remove his implied right of access at home, then surely they would have to seek a warrant ?
E.g Trespass
On a side note, if you get atopped by the police riding a bicycle or even a legal ebike drunk, and they ask for a breath sample.
Refuse point blank..it is only for people operating a mechanically propelled vehicle.
It is not an offence to refuse to give a breath sample in that situation.
Riders of horses, cycles, etc have been prosecuted in the past under different laws. When the drink driving rules came out many thought they could circumvent them but quickly found that they couldn't. Yes you cannot be forced to take a breathalyser, but if the police just suspect you have been drinking then you can be arrested and taken to the cop shop.
Im referring to a pushbike...they have no legal right to ask for a sample...they can arrest you if its deemed you are so drunk and refuse to stop that you are a menace to other road users..yes.
But still do not give a breath or blood sample..it would be used against you and there is no legal requirement to do so.
Thanks, love your channel.
Glad you enjoy it!
I got banned for failing to provide even though i wasn't even driving, i was a back seat passenger in a car crash. Driver ended up getting 3 points and fine, i received 3 week ban and points
đ€Łđ€Łđ€Łđ€Ł hows that work then lol .. did they think you was driving ?? if so why was the other person given points bud ???
@@spandangle334 driver and passenger legged it, i was thrown out of back window of the car and unconcious when police arrived, so they arrested me for being the driver. Later the next day driver handed himself in but still had to do me for not providing.
@@jaybooth9168 oh wow. Hope you have No contact with these scumbags who ran off and just left you and didn't help.
@Joe Rhodes Want to put money on it was in and out of court 5 times, i got 3 weeks ban, dr70 on my licence for 4 years, its down to the judges discretion and had no choice and had to ban me, because i wasn't the driver he gave me the minimum sentence of 3 week ban. 100% true. I also hold a hgv licence and received a letter from the traffic commissioner.
@@beaulieuonnp593 not any more, was just a couple of lads i knew at the time. I got in the car with them so its just 1 of those things, was just glad i made it out was a nasty crash.
Brilliant. Although I suspect the police have no interest in whether they are trespassing or not. They believe they have the right to do pretty much anything they wish.
Davis v Lisle, [1936] 2 KB 434
you may use force to get the constable to leave ! at this point he is not acting in his duty as a constable ! however you must give him time to leave your property before you start using force
@@geezerp1982 I think that is a really bad idea. I would remain calm. Protest the facts but comply. Then I would sue.
@@leeshellam3150 yes you could, although the courts have upheld the right to use force on cops , there was one in 1980s which only failed because the court ruled that the land owner didnt give the cop enough time to leave his property . i find it very interesting
@@geezerp1982 Sounds almost tempting.
@@leeshellam3150 I believe our wise Barrister here would recommend the same approach.
I donât drink , but despite my wife insisting (on each and every journey that she is my passenger , that I am a lousy driver , I have never been pulled over by police for my driving and therefore never in 40 years been required to take a breath test ( which of course I would pass anyway) .
Despite this implied police accreditation of good driving , my wife continues to make false accusations based on what I can only assume to be malicious reasons .
My legal question is, can I have my wife locked up ?
( or shut up would do for now )
I had an incident many years ago when i was a taxi driver. I was on my way home in my own car(not the car used as a taxi) and on a narrow road a car came the other way, I dipped my headlights knowing that one of my low beams was not working, The car passed me and as he did I noticed it was a police car and checking my rearview mirror saw him brake and then do a three point turn in the road to follow me.He followed me for approx 3 miles to my home where I pulled onto my drive. As I got out of the car they put their blue lights on( this was about 3am) so I asked them to turn them off which they did.I was asked if I lived at the address and was this my vehicle. Of course I replied yes to both questions and then they asked me for my documents which I refused and said to them" you have just followed me for 3 miles and could have stopped me at any time but you chose to do it when I was on private property so no I won't produce them but in about 6 or 7 hours I will be going out again and if they want to wait until I am on the public road they can pull me over and I would happily show them my documents.I said goodnight and went into my house. Later that morning I went out with no sign of the police waiting to pull me over.
Good for you. Perfectly reasonable. Problem comes when the police are not reasonable.
Thirty years ago I was advised by a solicitor that if you are stopped by the police and you know you are going to be over the limit then you refuse a sample. Yes you get a 12 month ban but it's on your licence for only 5 years and not 10 if done for drink driving. Is this still the case?
âsection 17 ss (1)(c)(iia) of The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 [2] grants a police officer the power to enter any premises in order to arrest an offender under section 4 (driving, attempting to drive or in charge when under the influence of drink or drugs) or section 163 (failure to stop when required to do so by a constable in uniform) of The Road Traffic Act 1988â
Interesting thank you!
Yep, remember this well..also as they had no evidence of Drunk in charge sec 5 I think RTA '72 no power there either..but what to do re the speeding offence..send a summons after the who was driver request ? NIPS etc đ
Very interesting caseâŠ. But the police could just arrest you, if they had suspicion that you are unfit through alcohol. No requirement to provide a specimen of breath on private property.
Absolutely outrageous. I'm guessing Mr Bypass Justice was a rich man. I work for the police and have on many occasions observed officers following a suspected drunk driver into their house. Surely the law that allows police to enter any property where they suspect a wanted person or a crime is happening overrules civil trespass law. I think many strings were pulled here and it's sickening.
As a former Scottish Police officer I can cite more than a few instances of suspected drunk drivers failing to stop and making a run for home thinking this would work for them. Let me assure you it didn't. Driving a vehicle whilst drunk is like firing a gun into a crowd, you don't know if anyone will get hurt but there's a damned good chance, and if they do, it will be severe. Such people should be given NO opportunity to avoid prosecution.
@@TicketyBoo. I got accused of drink driving , The police came to my house , i answered the door to them politely and asked if i could put my shoes on to accompany them to the police station when i turned my back to them to get my shoes i was attacked by them from behind , I managed to calm them down whilst resisting the urge to put them on the floor , they only allowed me to get one shoe on then slapped the cuffs on my wrists starting twisting them for that pain compliance and they proceeded to drag me out to the van while i was trying to hop there so i didn't get my sock wet on my unshoed foot , Needless to say it got worse from there , I was asked if i would provide a test twice to which i agreed both times no problem I don't drink but now i was surrounded by a group of officers who thought it was funny to twist those cuffs against the bones of my wrists , on the way to the testing machine 1 prick of an officer twisted those cuffs to what can only be described as far beyond necessary so i called him a fucking prick and asked for about the 10th time for them to stop applying unneeded pain , I was then dragged to cell quick sharp thrown on the floor and stripped naked and left there with a go fuck yourself pal your being recorded as failing to provide a test . The police also used a witness that was known to them as supplying drugs to minors ie cannabis and amphetamines , they painted they're witness as angelic .
Needless to say the district judge is in the same lodge so i got royally fucked got a 2 and a half year ban a huge fine , community service and one years probation on top of that I lost my job and one of those officers managed to stitch me up months later for a section 5 even though both the police witnesses stood there and both said the police officer was lying in court , now you tell me how that's fair considering i was more than happy to go give a sample because i don't drink because if i have more than 1 pint i end up being violently sick pretty much instantly . so whats the point in drinking . ?
couldn't believe it though ex squaddie gets they're rep ruined by police using drug dealers as witnesses fucking shambles
@@getafix72 Forgive me but there must be more to the story than you're saying. Is the nickname GETAFIX a clue perhaps? If you'd already entered your house they couldn't arrest you for drink driving as you may have got home and immediately consumed alcohol. If the police behaved as you say they did, that's unforgivable. I can honestly say that I've never in my career seen anyone treated that way. Yes more force may be necessary with someone who's violent but it's proportional, enough to get the job done. In my day we didn't even carry cuffs. Likewise I have NEVER heard of the police denying someone the opportunity to provide a sample for analysis then claim they refused it. That would suggest 'several' officers grossly failed in their duty, not just the arresting officers but the custody sergeant and inspector. What about the custody suite CCTV. Your lawyer should have been able to tear this apart. I'm sorry but I feel there's much missing in this story but what I would say is, if it's true, it's unforgivable and you should continue to fight it.
@@TicketyBoo. getafix is my gamer name in eve online pal , i got it from the old druid from the asterix cartoons he was the one who made the secret potion to defeat the romans and eve online is a strategy game , Custody suit CCTV your having a laugh aren't you ? More chance of finding a gold nugget 6 miles wide
@@getafix72 mad how Popo already deciding upon your nature and character because of an avatar name.
And so it goes...
So when the police break down the door of a drug dealers house and it is his property he can tell the police to leave ?
They won't be doing that without a warrant.
Asking for a freind
@@IanLomas I before e except after ecstasy
you deserve more viewers
Given how many children I have cared for with serious life changing brain injuries resulting from drink driving incidents I think the legislation needs to be changed.
This was 1980 odd, doesn't work that way these days thankfully.
surely the police can pursue a suspect onto private property if they know or suspect the person has committed a crime? Police had seen him speed so should have been lawfully able to go on private property to effect arrest or FPN for that offense.
No they only have a power if the law provides for it, the introduction shows that the police had a right to require a test off the road, but not on his private land. Trespassing means that they are acting unlawfully all the way through.
They were pursuing an investigation under section 5 of the Road Traffic Act (breath test). Had they had the evidence to revert to Section 4 (unfit to drive through drink or drugs) then they could have entered his property.
Not being there, we cannot know if there was more to his driving than simply speeding, which may have given the officers enough suspicion to proceed under Section 4.
@@robertstallard7836
Evening Robert
So do you know if this would still stand up today or have any laws been changed ??
@@EdMcF1 the police now have a power of entry under Section 17 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, when investigating a drug or drink driving offence under Section 4 of the Road Traffic Act. If you had refused entry they most likely would have arrested you for Section 4 and charged you with Section 5A anyway, which would have been perfectly lawful.
@@boriscorruption7385 the police now have a power of entry under Section 17 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, when investigating a drug or drink driving offence under Section 4 of the Road Traffic Act. If you had refused entry they most likely would have arrested you for Section 4 and charged you with Section 5A anyway, which would have been perfectly lawful.
Wouldnât happen now. The courts and the police do what they like wether itâs legal or not.
Exactly. I went to court for alleged speeding. When I asked to see any proof as I honestly did not believe I was speeding they said "let's just assume there is proof" (there was no proof, just his word) and hit me with points and a fine...
As we all know the police are a law to themselves
@@brendanfisher2528 I hear you Brendan, I proved the court clerk had lied in interview, the courts have never got back to me. The judicial system in the UK is a shambles.
Correct, and most if not all the solicitors are all in Cahoots with them!
After observing him speeding, and smelling alcohol , the first time the driver said âThis is private propertyâ, the officers should have arrested for suspected unfit through drink or drugs. The issue of the breath test is not then in question.
He has to appear drunk or impaired for that arrest to be lawful, suspicion of having consumed alcohol is not in itself evidence of being âunfitâ
Exactly.
You would be looking for evidence that the car had been swerving all over the show or that he could barely stand.
Hi is there any chance you could clear up the conundrum of ÂŁ20 ÂŁ50 ÂŁ100 coins being legal tender or not.
Got a question for you about Colin Pitchfork release, apparently, part of the release conditions is that he is required to take weekly lie detector tests, last time I check these weren't admissible in court, if that is still right, what reason could there possibly be for him to take one when they can't even use it against him in court?
Fascinating. I love these quirks.
I know this is an old video but if anyone has any opinions on this: If you are stopped at a random roadside police check and they ask you to volunteer for a breath test, if you refuse then what? I wonder if they think that only someone guilty would refuse and therefore now they have reasonable grounds to believe. It seems pointless otherwise.
this is why if the police ever ask to enter your house or request you step outside you should politely decline unless they have a warrant to compell you yo do either. Anything they ask should be met with "Respectully officer I do not intend to answer any questions unless I have been arrested and have legal counil present." NOTHING you can say on your defense is admissable in court( it is hearsay ) but everything that incriminates you is.
I heard of people breath tested when their car was parked and somebody else crashed into it.
Of course! You don't have to be driving. If a person is in charge of the vehicle when an accident occurred then they may be required to provide a specimen of breath.
New sub this happened to me and they just put cuffs on me and when I went to cop shop they said I didnât blow into test which I did 2 yrs off Rd and ÂŁ2000 outta pocket wish I hadda knew this then great video
I find it very interesting that the defendant was accused of committing an offence and the police have to 'back off' to his request to leave his property. Surely if an the officer thinks an offence has been committed he has a duty to uphold the law so the defendant doesn't really have the right to ask the officers to get off my land? This is why we need solicitors and Barristers.
Any officer with a good knowledge of traffic law, would have either requested the specimen of breath at the moment he spoke to the defendant, before he had the opportunity to request them to leave his land. thereby this would have enabled the fail to provide arrest.
Their other option would have been to arrest the defendant for section 4, drive whilst under the influence of drink or drugs, this would have negated the need for a breath test at the roadside. This would also given them the power to enter his property to make such an arrest.
Acts of Parliament, and "The Law," do not apply to every human automatically. Please could you make a video clarifying this most fundamental question?
Interesting that the provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1972 were used in this video but he failed to advise the Road Traffic Act was re-written in 1988
Youd be unwise to use this defence today
Another know all who actually know f*ck all. The Road Traffic Act 1972 was NOT re-written in 1988, it was amended in 1988, quite a massive difference, just a prick wannabe lawyer who thinks he know more than he actually does, STFU!
So a 40 year old example? S 5 of the RTA 1988 allowed a power of entry before it was amended so an argument could be made about whether the public had access to the driveway. As implied access is given to Royal Mail workers for example then it would be tenuous to say the least about whether the requirement for the breath test was on private property. This is the second example Iâve seen of this so called law expert giving advice which is not really sound, I will be blocking now any further videos which mean be suggested.
I know that trespass law is different here in Northern Ireland and I'm sure the policing laws could largely differ, but 20-odd years ago, having just necked a pint in the bar and having a quick hash pipe in mother's land rover, I got rumbled by the peelers pulling a handbrake turn in a hotel car park. They followed me home just down the road and breathalysed me on my (parents') property. I don't know if that would have affected any potential prosecution, but I passed the breath test and they left with a warning of - don't pull tricks like that in a high-sided vehicle.
Not to heed the slightest warning from that incident, I was caught on the road, drunk as a lord, in a home-made go-kart (100cc bike engine, 50mph). I was actually trying to turn onto an A road when the police pulled up and asked me to 'step out of the vehicle.' On that occasion, I refused to give a sample (I was well over), and I got done for drunk in charge and ÂŁ100 fine, kept my licence though (I think it was just before points were introduced).
ACTUALLY SEEN AN EPISODE OF POLICE CAMERA ACTION WERE THE GUY REFUSED EVERYTHING AND QUITELY END OF SHOW THE NARRATOR SAID GUY WAS RELEASED WITHOUT CHARGE !!!!!
I remember that episode. Does anyone know any details about this?
@@pwllglass1 ALL I KNOW THAT REFUSEINGTO SIGN ANYTHING MAY ACTUALLY HELP AS IT MAY GIVE THE POLICE LESS POWERS WHILE IN CUSTODY AS YOU HAVE AGREED TO ZERO CONTRACTS !!!!
@@olcapone3039 OK thanks.
Probably because he gets another opportunity to provide a specimen at the station and the guy must have passed it.
So if i carry out a criminal act on my property, and the police are called, i merely say ''this is private property and i want you to leave'' I dont think that would work in my favour
please read this. some years ago my friend was a passenger along with 5 other passengers at night when they were stopped by the police because the driver ran a red light. the police ask my friend to provide a breath test. he refused because he was not driving. he was then arrested and charged.. then banned from driving.. on appeal the judge agreed he was not driving.. but guilty of failure to provide a breath test.. the judge took away the fine but not the ban. its a quirk in the law.. if you're walking yo dog and the police ask you for a breath test it's illegal for you to refuse..
so the idea that maybe the property belonged to somebody else was considered, what if it was not his but was indeed somebody else's private property? a random strangers
In that instance the accused would not have the right to revoke the implied right of access.
@@1t_wasnt_me Not necessarily.
If the property were his rented home, it would not belong to him, but would still be a private place from which he would be authorised to exclude others.
He couldn't have pulled into a random driveway and demanded that the officers leave, unless the owner of said driveway agreed that he was welcome but the officers were not.
I think they would be referring to whether there was a mortgage on the property.
The wording of the law takes precedence over justice. No doubt many will be listening to this with a view to getting home before they are caught
Yes and then be speeding while drunk, what a great idea.
Hello There.
Could you please explain the difference between "Not Guilty" & "Innocent"
I didn't think legal stuff could be so interesting.
Hi, could you please turn down the background music, it's difficult for those of us with dicky hearing Thanks
Once asked to leave a dwelling.. the police cannot make arrest or force entry for majority of summary offences absent of a warrant.
i have read that the police now have a power of entry under Section 17 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, when investigating a drug or drink driving offence under Section 4 of the Road Traffic Act. If entry is refused they most likely could arrest you for Section 4 and charged you with Section 5A anyway, which would be perfectly lawful.
@@djneils100
You right.. drink drive investigation is an exceptionâŠthe barrister should update the video.. the law has been updated since that case in 1981..đđđ
Updated my comment as well.. well spotted sir!
@@PeterDBlackburn in my case I had pulled onto my drive and the police turned up after I exited the car - someone had reported that they suspected me of drug driving. There was nothing in my actual driving that would have lead them to pull me over just the intelligence from a member of the public.
So if the defendant was being pulled over on blues just before he turned into hi driveway which way would this case have gone?
Whats to stop any drunk driver commitimg the much lesser offense of failing to stop and drink driving home amd then saying no go away you're trespassing?
I presume because the offence of failure to stop occurred on public land the police would have more grounds to arrest you and then ask for a sample at the station. Again the exact sequence of events is probably important. BBB could probably explain
Failing to stop isnât the lesser offence it is an either way offence so the police would have a power of entry, drink driving is summary only
Given all the videos we saw during Covid lockdowns of Police forcing their way into peoples homes - apparently (Although we don't know for sure) without warrants - how were they able to do this? I am not one to constantly berate the Police however it does worry me that they are quickly becoming overly heavy handed without any regard for the rules they are required to follow.
That episode made me wonder about situation I had some time ago. I moved into a new house at December (rental). In January police knocked to my doors with a search warrant with my address and the name of previous occupant. They said that they did detained a lady for stealing from her workplace and she gave that address as her home and they looking for a stolen stuff. At the time of arrest she was already leaving somewhere else but looks like she decided to waste police time and to give her friends time to clean up new place from all illegal stuff.
Since i didn't had anything to hide i let police officers into my building and I've let them to do the search but I wonder right now - was it a lawful search and if they would find anything illegal but not related to their search warrant could they act on that?
If the search was legal it would mean that arrested people can give a random address to the police and put a shitload of problems on random citizens.
Interesting point!
Yes, if they searched your place and found anything illegal, they could arrest you. A bit like the warning they give on the website when you are reporting someone you caught on your dashcam, they scrutinise your driving too and can charge you with any offence they find.
Never let them in. they are on a fishing trip and would love to catch you...for anything.
very interesting points and story. I had something similar though not as bad. Was in a rented property and this woman who had left the property did not pay her parking fine and we had the enforcement officers turning up. I said she had left months ago but they asked for my ID as I could have been her. I had nothing to hide so I just gave them a look at my card.I was lucky to have ID on me. But when flatmates leave, you get end up getting a lot of their financial or criminal messes. I wish tenants could be made to provide landlords with their new address.
@@beaulieuonnp593 from the other perspective I wouldn't want to be forced to disclose my new address to landlord.
Likely my situation was non problematic for me. An officer just walked through the house and looked around. They didn't do a deep search and even if they did worst that would happend would be a mess.
Man dude I would hate it if you were a prosecutor for something I done wrong going for a conviction against me đ€Ł Not that I would ever be in trouble ever đ
It seems to fly in the face of common sense, especially since the police had already observed him committing an offense by breaking the speed limit.
If they were following someone whom they suspected of having committed an assault or robbery, for example, would it have been unlawful to enter his property to arrest him, or would this also have been unlawful on the grounds of their trespassing on his property?
Assault and robbery are indictable offences and grant police authority to enter someone's property under section 17 of PACE.
@@sseedell Thank you for enlightening me with regard to the relevant legislation. I thought that must be the case, since it would be absurd to think that someone could get away with a serious offence simply by arriving home before the police could arrest them.
If he had stolen something they could not have come into the house and search for the evidence whether they saw him steal it or not. As here, they cant come on his property to obtain the evidence they want
@@KowBoySpace Theft is an either way offence so they can enter under Section 17 of PACE and after an arrest can search for evidence related to the offence under Section 32 of PACE
They would need a warrant
So was the driver near his home when a police car flashed him to stop and he subsequently drove into his property ? If so how far can you drive after being flashed or asked to pull over ? If so could you in theory not stop and just drive home from wherever then refuse a test ?
Do we know if this is why Section 4 RTA was created? Driving whilst unfit? As that has a power of entry attached. Thanks
It all goes down to a warrant less search of his property. After all the police enforce the law that doesnât mean they can break law just to catch a guilty man, although he was likely to have been guilty.
What about the Power of Entry under Section 6E RTA 1988 following an accident where the officer knows there has been an accident, suspects injury to any person and believes the person was driving / attempting to drive or in charge at the time of the accident.
Feel like this should be covered with this topic as an officer would not be acting illegally if permission to be on private property was revoked. To be sure the officer could simply leave and return immediately with this power. Effectively stepping off and onto the property again.
Your thoughts.
If the officers had gone down the Sec 4 RTA route they would have had a power of entry and the argument of private property would have been irrelevant
Since this case they infact changed the law now that police can enter private property if a crime has been committed and there the police would be allowed to remain as he had committed the offence of speeding one they have cationed him all other offences can be considered
Does the right to revoke permission for the police to be on private property apply to rented accommodation too?
Not sure if you ever gonna read this but what happens if someone breakchecks you, then boxes you in, preventing you from leaving? Is it considered a kidnapping, holding me against my will?
Am I allowed to ram them in this case?
There was an event recently where someone was brake checked and reversed up to, blocking them in. The occupants jumped out and tried to force entry into the car and the driver managed to make a space to get away but hit one of the people trying to steal his car, carrying him some distance down the road on the bonnet. No charges were brought against the driver because the whole incident was caught on dashcam. I know nothing about law but Iâm guessing it would be self defence and reasonable force through fearing for your life and property.
YOU HAVE TO DO A VIDEO ON Harvey v Director of Public Prosecutions
What is the difference between 'Unlawful' and 'Illegal'?
Is the term "escape" correct? That would suggest he has been imprisoned, and is now evading the law. Maybe, what is taking place is the "fog of law" is being cleared or maybe that the "law" built on sand has received the earthquake of judicial clarity.....a shake down, at its best.
Would that be any private land that the driver had right of access too, or just his home property. i always thought the police had authority to enter any house or private land if he as reasonable proof that an offence is being or has been committed.
I would imagine, and I could be wrong, you can't withdraw access from land that does not belong to you. So only your own land you can withdraw access
@@ShawnWhite2000 I think the question is wrong, I think the question should have two parts "can the police go on to any land which is open access to the generally public?, if yes do they loose some of there Police powers while they are on that land, to the land owner" inesence they get turn in to private security like any over security firm (of a citizen's arrest is made by a person who is not a sworn law enforcement official. so anyone can arrest a person committing an offence. They can also arrest someone if they reasonable grounds to suspect they are committing an indictable offence and they don't mind being taken to court them self aswell.
so would the have to get you off your private land first, before they could a rest you?
@@dh2032 police cannot enter any private land to effect any arrest ! they can only enter to arrest for an indictable offence only and for six summary offences listed under section 17 pace . other wise they need an arrest warrant
â@@dh2032 "can the police go on to any land which is open access to the generally public?" - Yes, they can go on to any land using implied rights of access.
"if yes do they loose some of there Police powers while they are on that land" - No, I would think they would still have all their powers. In the case in the video, the property owner removed their implied rights of access before the police were able to arrest/caution the person.
"so would the have to get you off your private land first, before they could a rest you?" - Interesting. I suspect that if the property owner/driver had re-entered a public highway then they would not have that protection from arrest anymore.
Very interesting đ€
Amazing, I wonder about the law of unintended circumstances with this, a man stabs another man, Police chase him to his home, man says sorry your trespassing police walk away... lol
No.
No
I would love to test this in court if I got pulled over !......because I don't drink alcohol for medical reasons. So if I refused to give a specimen of breath knowing that I was telling the truth that for me in my case makes the law an ass & by that the officer would not take my word as the truth. This law is heavily favoured with the police & non drinkers are treated the same which is wrong in my view.
@@PeterDBlackburn Hi Peter. I take onboard your reply but I feel the law is heavily in favour of the police.....It is true & you will tell otherwise no one has to talk to the police & they say it themselves you have the right to remain silent but in my case & other people that don't drink have the right to refuse a breath test purely because they don't drink & if the police don't believe anybody who does that are more or less calling them liars. Now I myself & you also are going to say well why don't you just give the test to satisfy all concerned but the point is the police have certain powers that the general public have no control over & in this instance this particular law should be revised...it is not always one suit fits all...Thank you stay safe.
Ok, so we just need signs saying "No Police permitted to enter [without permission]" on our driveways?
Great content well done
How close does an officer have to be to make the requirement? Could the police have made a lawful requirement from the pavement if the driver was on his driveway? Obviously the police cannot enter to deal with the failure to provide, but if they could identify the driver they could report him for summons.
I'll be honest here I myself have fallen foul to this and I'm not proud of it really stupid, me and the family going to Tenerife the next morning you can imagine that holiday especially because she found the van down the street and stuck a note on it accusing me of having an affair it's a long time ago now, followed back from the pub about three miles didn't put a foot wrong got to within 200 yards of my drive, blue's,, and now I now why, but still you are right blackbelt barrister I deserved it, and no I didn't phone the missus from the station in case you wondered why the note on the windscreen, I've made mistakes in my life but driving over the limit that one was my worst đ
Yeah. Lets all help drink drivers. Give me strength.
Strange! More so considering s4 RTA has its own power of entry
this happened to me but I'm told things are different now
The black belt barrister has failed to consider that apparently the police now have a power of entry under Section 17 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, when investigating a drug or drink driving offence under Section 4 of the Road Traffic Act. If you had refused entry they most likely would have arrested you for Section 4 and charged you with Section 5A anyway, which would have been perfectly lawful.
He was examining a HISTORICAL case, not a current one.
@@PeterMaddison2483 Correct, but it would also have been helpful to clarify if the law still supports the defence used in this video.
If they used a loudspeaker before he got into his driveway, would that be enough to allow them to do what they did?
No, because the request could have been being given to anyone. The defendant would not know it was for him.