Please help with section 30A

[deadbeatdad]

Not a problem with this one, they want to interview you under caution ok here goes. You will go to Revenue Station, sorry Police Station, they take you into the interview scarey or what and then the come out with the usual trash

" you have the right to remain silent anything you do say will be given in evidence bla bla bla"

They MUST ask you if you understasnd the caution
You reply simply by stating this

"officer i am not familiar with that statement you have just read out"

This will confuse them because they realise now that they cannot question you, then it's game over for them.
They will ask you if you want to read the PACE manual, just ask them what that is, they will say it is a manual stating how the Police and Criminal Evidence procedure works, unfortunately as yo are now aware that is all statutes, so just say I am not accepting anything that is going to contract me with this place of business. They will give you the same old speil of we are an authority not a business, well if you go armed with the proof from Dun and Bradstreet stating that the particular Police Station is trading on there as a company then you have the evidence to show they are, it is now up to them to prove they are not.
Ask the officer to talk you through the PACE manual, this will really pi## him off because intstrad of giving you the book to read whilst he goes off and has a coffee and a read or maybe pick on somebody else it means he has to read it all for you..... shame.
When he gets to the end some 8 hours later you simply state
"officer Iam still not familiar with the caution"
Then seeing as you are not under arrest you may leave the building

[ruthieraygun]

[quote="macswin"
Some questions first.

what were you arrested for, and under what act?

what were you charged with?

just need some details to help further

regards

Macswin[/quote]

Thank you Macswin I realise I have done a reckless and stupid thing however I am asking for advice not foriveness from the members.

I was given a notice for the arrested person granted bail in accordance with section 30A police and criminal evidence act 1984, so I don't think I've been arrested, I've been invited to be interviewed on wednesday.

On my bail sheet the offence is stated as'driving whilst over prescribed limit'.

regards

ruthieraygun

[macswin]

to ruthieraygun

you are correct in saying that you are not asking for forgiveness, some people here do not judge so easily as some have demonstrated. I am going to give you a link to the actual police and criminal evidence act 1984 so you can read it yourself, as I will. i will give you my interpretation and understanding of it, just remember none on this board give you legal advice (just suggestions )

the link is

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/legResults.aspx?LegType=All%20Primary&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=2&activeTextDocId=1871554

also i have upload many books on statutory interpretation and law dictionaries, it may be helpful to get acquainted with these

statutory interpretation books are here

http://tpuc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=2761

Law dictionaries are here

http://tpuc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=2660

this thread might interest you as well (on court related stuff)

http://tpuc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=3090

Always research any advice given, including mine

when i have some information for you i will post it

Respectfully

Macswin

[macswin]

this is the procedure the police must follow

Procedure
The police officer at the roadside will administer a screening breath test using a digital breathalyser. This uses a "traffic light" system under which green indicates no alcohol present, amber some alcohol but below the legal limit, and red alcohol possibly above the legal limit. A refusal to provide a specimen at this point is an offence, but of itself does not lead to mandatory disqualification, particularly if you subsequently provide a specimen at the police station. This is partly to deter wasting police time.
If your reading is red, you will be arrested on suspicion of drink-driving and required to take a further test at a police station. You cannot be convicted purely on the evidence of the roadside breath test. If the police officer is in a car, he might take you directly to the police station, but more likely (and certainly if he is on a motorcycle) he will call for another police vehicle to attend the scene to provide transport.
At the police station, you will be required to provide two breath samples for the Intoximeter equipment, which is accurately calibrated and is used to provide the evidence of your BAC that is presented in court. The reading that will be used is the lower of the two samples. At this stage, a refusal to provide a specimen is an offence that is treated in law as the equivalent of being convicted with a BAC above the legal limit.
If your breath-alcohol level is between 40 and 49 µg, you will be offered the opportunity to take a blood or urine test as an alternative. This option should always be taken, as you have nothing to lose, and there is a chance it may result in a more favourable figure, particularly if you consider your alcohol level is falling. If the police fail to offer this alternative they have not applied the procedure correctly and this can be used as a defence in court. You also have the right to be given a sample of blood or urine for independent analysis, but experience suggests that the alcohol level is unlikely to vary significantly from the official test.
In practice, prosecution guidelines followed by the police mean that drivers are not normally prosecuted until they reach 40 µg of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath, equivalent to a blood alcohol level of over 90 mg. However, you should be aware that the police will prosecute for blood and urine alcohol levels of 1 mg over the legal limit, if the breath-alcohol level was above 40 µg. This explains why press reports occasionally appear of individuals being prosecuted with a BAC of 81 mg, which seems to go against the discretion outlined above. It should also be remembered that the 40 µg threshold is only a discretionary one, and the police may prosecute for a 36 µg level if, for an example, a driver appeared to be very drunk, but gave an unexpectedly low reading.
To stop you from driving again while you are still over the limit, the police may keep you at the police station for some time. In some cases this can mean a night in the cells. Once you have been released from the police station you will be expected to make your own way home at your own expense, and also to retrieve your vehicle. http://www.80mg.org.uk/ddlaw.html

compare this to the facts of your case of which i have made a summary and see if they followed procedure

Facts of the case


1. You were driving home last night with a friend when you lost control of the car and hit a tree
2. Some members of the public stopped and called the police
3. You were put into an ambulance where a lady paramedic asked me what hurt etc and also asked if you had been drinking; you said nothing but showed her that your shoulder hurt. The paramedic asked you again if you had been drinking tonight- I said nothing
4. The 2 Police people came (to the hospital room) in a male PC 2471 Jackson and PC 643 Moody.
5. Then the female paramedic came into the room and said it appears she has been drinking.
6. The officers then asked if you had been drinking you said nothing however told them that I didn’t want to talk to them
7. The male officer said he had some questions to ask you and you said that you didn’t want to answer them so he got out a booklet and said he would have to complete this if you were refusing to answer questions
8. They advised you that if you refused a breath test then they would ask the doctor to come back in and take a blood test; you said that’s ok then do that.
9. They didn’t give a breath test and kept on talking about you taking a breath test
10. The officers said that if you didn’t they would get the doctor back again to do blood test they never did and you ended up taking the breathalyser. this took a while and when you took it was either 7.8 or 78
11. The male officer then advised you that you were double the legal limit and said he would be cautioning you
12. The male officer partially cautioned you while the female officer had one to talk to your passenger
13. You were then taken for X-rays at which point the male officer said he wanted to issue you with a notice to arrested person granted bail in accordance with section 30A of the Police and criminal evidence Act 1984
14. You said that you wouldn’t sign it without a witness and were taken to X-ray where the officers followed me and waited outside.
15. When you came out from my X-rays they were waiting to issue you with the bail form. Again I said that I wanted a phone call so that I had a witness to what was happening
16. The male officer laughed and said “fine but I’m not waiting around for them to turn up” and said that you were refusing to sign. You disagreed and said that you were not refusing however would do so if you had a witness
17. The male officer then wrote on the form refused with a witness instead of what I had asked for and then they left.

And another thing did they actually arrest you and under what charge?

Macswin

[Napalmtheelf]

Is this boiling down to a let he without sin...arument?

Personally, given the previous comment about doing 20yrs in nick...I think I was being rather fair.

I added the basic do no harm bit because I didnt want to go into depth about common law, because as you point out, there are many here who are far better versed in it than I.

However, putting freeman theory and common law aside. If you are so drunk that you drive into a tree, and I guess we're not talking a christmas tree here, then you shouldnt be driving at all. Common law has nothing to do with it.
Common sense does.

Sadly in my career Ive had too many opportunities to hear from people who have lost loved ones including children to drunk drivers, and such things are far from pleasant.

Yes, yes, Ive made mistakes, like everyone, but not by putting others at potential risk, only myself.

Basically, he did something inanely stupid, he prob lost his car, and then got nicked. Is this forum all about get out clauses for people who do such crass things?

Many of the laws in this country do not bear up to scutiny and obviously have an agenda, but can anyone actually say that driving a car while you are totally pissed is a good thing? If so, I'd love to hear the arguments.

[ruthieraygun]

Thank you Macswin, thats really helpful. I think I was arrested as my bail sheet states that my offense was driving whilst over prescribed limit.

Kind regards
ruthieraygun

[macswin]

Is this boiling down to a let he without sin...arument?

Personally, given the previous comment about doing 20yrs in nick...I think I was being rather fair.

I added the basic do no harm bit because I didnt want to go into depth about common law, because as you point out, there are many here who are far better versed in it than I.

However, putting freeman theory and common law aside. If you are so drunk that you drive into a tree, and I guess we're not talking a christmas tree here, then you shouldnt be driving at all. Common law has nothing to do with it.
Common sense does.

Sadly in my career Ive had too many opportunities to hear from people who have lost loved ones including children to drunk drivers, and such things are far from pleasant.

Yes, yes, Ive made mistakes, like everyone, but not by putting others at potential risk, only myself.

Basically, he did something inanely stupid, he prob lost his car, and then got nicked. Is this forum all about get out clauses for people who do such crass things?

Many of the laws in this country do not bear up to scutiny and obviously have an agenda, but can anyone actually say that driving a car while you are totally pissed is a good thing? If so, I'd love to hear the arguments.

No one is saying that drinking and driving is a good thing, nor condoning it. ruthieraygun asked for help, and I am trying to give it without judgments. but if we are going according to the law, it is legal to drink and drive up to a certain limit. which to my knowledge is

if the reading is 39/100ml the person is free to go
if the reading is between 40 and 50/100ml then the person has the right to take a blood test
If above 50/100ml then it goes to prosecution

and there is a procedure the police have to follow, which in ruthieraygun's case there seems to be some inconsistencies. where abuse of power may be shown.

I don't think this forum is for people to look for get out clauses, i assumed it was a community where people are united, not divided. it is a community trying to understand how to learn about lawful rebellion.

instead of getting on a pedestal and telling people what they should do or not do, is not helping people understand better and showing compassion a better way to unite people. now ruthieraygun admits he/she has done something reckless and will have learnt from the experience. And if we can help him/her does this not strengthen the community not give people a free license to do what they please

Sorry if I have offended you Napalmtheelf but i try not to judge people on the little information they post.

Respectfully

Macswin

[ianto_yr_twp]

A few years back I saw the twisted bodies of two sisters who were waiting at a bus shelter to go to a church choir meeting when they were ploughed down into their premature deaths by a drunken irresponsible idiot....you bet I would shoot them, every god damn one who drinks and drive as they have no respective for anything least of all themselves..

I have been asked why I repeat myself? WELL OBVIOUSLY THE MESSAGE IS NOT GETTING THROUGH TO THE PISS ARTISTS WHO DRINK AND DRIVE AS THEY KEEP COMING HERE LOOKING FOR AN OUT. WHEN THEY DO THIS AND INFEST THIS BB THEN I WILL POST IN RESPONSE AS SOME OF US ARE VERY DEDICATED AND RESPONSIBLE FREEMEN.

[macswin]

A few years back I saw the twisted bodies of two sisters who were waiting at a bus shelter to go to a church choir meeting when they were ploughed down into their premature deaths by a drunken irresponsible idiot....you bet I would shoot them, every god damn one who drinks and drive as they have no respect (correction mine) for anything least of all themselves..

I have been asked why I repeat myself? WELL OBVIOUSLY THE MESSAGE IS NOT GETTING THROUGH TO THE PISS ARTISTS WHO DRINK AND DRIVE AS THEY KEEP COMING HERE LOOKING FOR AN OUT. WHEN THEY DO THIS AND INFEST THIS BB THEN I WILL POST IN RESPONSE AS SOME OF US ARE VERY DEDICATED AND RESPONSIBLE FREEMEN.

How do you know the message is not getting through? have you conducted a study of the members of this board? do you know everybody's opinion?

you are repeating yourself for no reason as the person who started the thread has said the following

I realise I have done a reckless and stupid thing

I am sorry to bother you with another response ianto_yr_twp as i know you do not like answering the questions I pose. but many driving related deaths are not solely caused by drink driving, people have been killed by cars through various diverse causes. do not misunderstand me I do not condone drinking and driving, for i do neither. but to pigeonhole drunk drivers as killers, is slightly naive. irresponsible, yes they are and I'm sure the majority who have been drunk while driving will admit it.

driving in any populated area is dangerous because of the brutal power of a car compared to a human being. we are fragile creatures and death comes in many forms. people are killed in many ways it is the price of living , in a city, or the country and in this world.

should we prohibit all forms of transport then as they all have the potential to kill? or more specifically shall we just get rid of the whole population who have even the greater potential to kill?

I added this to my signature

"Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one." Nietzsche

Have you become the monster, you the 'dedicated and responsible freeman' ?

[CheekyCherub]

I realise Deadbeatdad has posted here but after reading various comments i have to say that i also do not condone drink driving after having had some members of my own family lost to this crime. I say crime because this is one side of the law, albeit statute or common, that i believe is a crime, no one should ever drink and then drive. There are enough things out there that shorten anyones life, humans should be responsible and not add to these.
In this instance i would have to say that you take your punishment for your actions and then learn from what has happened and learn to never do it again,be thankfull that no one was killed or badly injured, be ever more thankfull that it wasn't you,as i am sure your family and friends will be.
This isn't a telling off or a moralisation, it is merely my firm opinion on this particular matter, that is all,be thankful for many things, the main one being your life.
peace always
hugs
Tigs x