Q: for the police re disclosure

[Tank]

My son (as some of you may remember) is up on a EBA charge.

We have just received the "disclosure" pack.

I was more than a little surprised how little was in it - nothing other than a caption sheet.

I thought that there would have been print outs of the breath reading, forms being signed by my son turning down blood test etc. In fact under exhibits it simply states "Documentary"

The whole sheet is as follows:
Name *
Address *
DOB*
Occupation*
Charges Drives with Excess Breath Alcohol
Witnesses: 1 x Police
Exhibits: Documentary

Summary of facts:
At about X.XX on XXXX the defendant XXXX was the driver of a Nissan motor vehicle registration XXX on XXX st Auckland City.

The Defendant was stopped where he exhibited signs of recent alcohol consumption

Breath test procedures were carried out, with the defendant recording a result of 528 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath.

When spoken to the police the defendant said that he was on his way home.

The defendant is a 22 year old male who is currently employed at XXXX and has not appeared before the court before.

---------------

A couple of questions: Why are there no exhibits - I would have thought that there would have been printouts / accepting no blood test forms etc that would be submitted as evidence?

I dont know where they got his job from - but the details they entered on the form works at XXX is not where he works and he never has.

Does anything stand out? Is this normal?

[Winston001]

I share your surprise. If your son obtained disclosure personally (as opposed to through his solicitor), you should ask for the full info.

[Grub]

In fact i believe that if they have not disclosed the information to you, they cannot use it in evidence.

Here's an appeal Court decision which touches on the issue. There's more, Google is your friend

Commissioner of Police v Ombudsman [1988] 1 NZLR 385 (CA); also reported as Pearce v Thompson (1988) 3 CRNZ 268.

The judgments of the Court of Appeal (five member court) in this case established the present system, based upon the Official Information Act 1982, of disclosure by the prosecution in criminal cases.

The case brought to an end the unsatisfactory position that had previously applied in a summary hearing of a defended criminal case in the District Court, where the defendant had no advance disclosure of the evidence to be adduced against him. It also introduced the regime under which the Crown, in a trial on indictment, makes disclosure of material from the police file including statements made by witnesses to the police.

Mr Pearce had made application to the police, in relation to charges brought against him in the Upper Hutt District Court, for access to the briefs of evidence of the witnesses to give evidence against him. The request, which was made under the Official Information Act, was refused. The Ombudsman found in favour of Mr Pearce but the High Court took the contrary view and ruled that the briefs did not have to be disclosed (Commissioner of Police v Ombudsman [1985] 1 NZLR 578)

However, in this hearing, a five judge Court of Appeal decided that there is a general obligation on the prosecution, in summary proceedings, to disclose, on request, briefs of evidence, witness statements and police job sheets. The principles enunciated in the case applied equally to witness statements and job sheets in trials on indictment.

Don't say a thing now just turn up in court with a copy of this judgement, say you asked for the evidence and show that you haven't received it.

[Tank]

I share your surprise. If your son obtained disclosure personally (as opposed to through his solicitor), you should ask for the full info.

He asked for the disclosure at the initial hearing this morning when we received a 2 week extension in order to seek legal advise. The single sheet of paper was given in an envelope by the court / police at the hearing. It was recorded on the sheet that the public defendant has that disclosure was requested.


In fact i believe that if they have not disclosed the information to you, they cannot use it in evidence.

I thought that - but that just dosnt make sense - why would they only have a "documentary" as the sole exhibit - since this is something fairly common I thought that they would have all the paperwork as standard - perhaps they dont require it?

[Grub]

thought that they would have all the paperwork as standard - perhaps they dont require it?

See the Court of Appeal item I just added. It specifies "police job sheets"

[henry]

It's the polices job to convict you. They are not going to give up anything that is going to help you without you asking.

[Matt_TG]

It's the polices job to convict you. They are not going to give up anything that is going to help you without you asking.

Just a comment, I thought it was the judge who was the one that convicts you, the Police bring the matter to the judge.

[scumdog]

See the Court of Appeal item I just added. It specifies "police job sheets"

The only extras would be the E.B.A. check list (ask for it) and the Q.H.A. (if your son has any criminal record - I don't think he has)

Job-sheets are rarely done for standard E.B.A. files, only if something is exceptional in the case.

Normally in a lot of cases the Summary of Facts and Q.H.A. are all that are initially disclosed as for anything else to be disclosed wastes time due to most drunk-drivers not even bothering with even the S.O.F and Q.H.A.

With defended hearing more is disclosed.

I disclose all I have but that's my choice 'cos it saves losers clutching at straws trying to defend the indefensible.... :stupid:

[Winston001]

Hmmmm......I know Grub is being helpful but a 1988 case isn't always relevant in 2008. It might be - but I wouldn't bet the whole defence on it. For example, this decision pre-dates the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Land Transport Act 1998.

Yes, it is arguable to defend on the basis of insufficent disclosure but if the police ask for an adjournment on the basis of it being overlooked.....:weep: Its a legal argument, not for the layman.

[madbikeboy]

Instead of fighting something that looks like it is correct - meaning that his blood/alcohol exceeds the limit, and at 528, he's well over the limit - why aren't you instead telling your son to get his shit together and not drive drunk. That way people like those who I have lost as a result of moronic people who choose to drink and drive, would be alive and I'd be a happier person.

Red bling accepted gracefully (as I'm sure it's on its way).

[sunhuntin]

Just a comment, I thought it was the judge who was the one that convicts you, the Police bring the matter to the judge.

its the prosecutors [polices] job to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

[jrandom]

My son (as some of you may remember) is up on a EBA charge.

Presumably he actually dunnit. Right? It was him driving the car, and there's no reason to suspect that the BA measurement was inaccurate?

So why isn't he just pleading guilty?

If the facts of a matter allow it to be argued in court, well and good, but I personally have no time for people who try to weasel out of shit they actually did. A fair cop is a fair cop.

[SPman]

... A fair cop is a fair cop.
But - society is to blame!

[jrandom]

But - society is to blame!

Precisely.

Not to mention that, as we all know, there is no moral culpability associated with drunk driving unless the police get the paperwork right.

[Skyryder]

I don't think any charge no matter what calls for a guilty plea based soley on guilt. If this was the case then the police, courts, etc would simply just get slack with the result that an innocent person may be convicted because of sloppy police or court procedures. If a defendent chooses to query the evidence that is their right. Personly if he is found guilty then he needs the book thrown at him but untill that happens dad or anyone else for that matter has the right to query the evidence or the lack of it.


Skyryder

[Kickaha]

Instead of fighting something that looks like it is correct - meaning that his blood/alcohol exceeds the limit, and at 528, he's well over the limit - why aren't you instead telling your son to get his shit together and not drive drunk. That way people like those who I have lost as a result of moronic people who choose to drink and drive, would be alive and I'd be a happier person.

Red bling accepted gracefully (as I'm sure it's on its way).


Presumably he actually dunnit. Right? It was him driving the car, and there's no reason to suspect that the BA measurement was inaccurate?

So why isn't he just pleading guilty?

If the facts of a matter allow it to be argued in court, well and good, but I personally have no time for people who try to weasel out of shit they actually did. A fair cop is a fair cop.

What are you two on about, personal responsibilty is so over rated

[madbikeboy]

Yeah, I apologise, random ideas like "responsibility" pop into my head sometimes, and with suffering from Tourettes, I have to sorta yell it out loud.

Here's another idea (in lieu of common sense breaking out). Lets get all the drug dealers, the drunk drivers, and all the politicians into Hamilton one night. Get them all lit up, free booze and drugs, then encourage them with free access to firearms and all the cars they can crash. Shouldn't take too many of those nights before we fix most of the problems... :2guns:

[jrandom]

I don't think any charge no matter what calls for a guilty plea based soley on guilt.

You just reworded my comment about the prevailing attitude that there is no moral culpability associated with a crime unless the police get the paperwork right.

:no:

[davereid]

When you ask for disclosure, the police will give you all the information they intend to use against you in court.

They can still use stuff they haven't disclosed as long as you haven't asked for it, and it is later called for.

So, for example, if you ask for disclosure, and they provide a simple statement of facts, and thats what they prosecute with, then they are fine.

If you ask for more data at trial they can provide it.

So for example, if at trial for, you ask if the policeman was trained to use the device, the police can provide that data.

But, if you asked for operator training information as part of disclosure, and the police did not provide it, the police could not automatically then produce training records as evidence of the operators skill.

In other words, if you asked them as part of disclosure to show the operator was skilled to use the device, and they did not provide that evidence, the court may assume it did not exist.

[fireliv]

I would contact them and find out IF there is anymore disclosure, as it is only fair that you get all the information before you enter your plea.
Just remember that there is really only a few defences to this charge, and if you enter a not guilty plea now, and enter a guilty plea later cos you really have no defense, your sentence will be "harsher" than if you had plead guilty in the first place.

Your son has no convictions so would prob get a fine & disqualification (Manatory).

Good luck

[doc]

This is the problem nowdays, you maybe guilty as sin but some snakeoil type lawyer gives you hope you can beat the charges. I've been thru this, naively made an honest statement I was guilty as, paid money to said snakeskin wearing evangalist, cos he could still get me off. Until the day off the court case , after forking over a small fortune, when he recommended we plead guilty. Ever heard of Peter Kaye . :2guns:

[Winston001]

Presumably he actually dunnit. Right? It was him driving the car, and there's no reason to suspect that the BA measurement was inaccurate?

So why isn't he just pleading guilty?

If the facts of a matter allow it to be argued in court, well and good, but I personally have no time for people who try to weasel out of shit they actually did. A fair cop is a fair cop.

I think Tank is looking for guidance rather than a clever "out" for his son. I tend to agree - do the crime, do the time but we don't know Tank isn't saying exactly that. Besides, the son might have his own ideas and need to learn his own lesson.

Something like 95% of drink driving prosecutions result in straight-up guilty pleas

[Tank]

Instead of fighting something that looks like it is correct - meaning that his blood/alcohol exceeds the limit, and at 528, he's well over the limit - why aren't you instead telling your son to get his shit together and not drive drunk. That way people like those who I have lost as a result of moronic people who choose to drink and drive, would be alive and I'd be a happier person.

Red bling accepted gracefully (as I'm sure it's on its way).


Presumably he actually dunnit. Right? It was him driving the car, and there's no reason to suspect that the BA measurement was inaccurate?

So why isn't he just pleading guilty?

If the facts of a matter allow it to be argued in court, well and good, but I personally have no time for people who try to weasel out of shit they actually did. A fair cop is a fair cop.

Sorry to disappoint Madbikeboy - no red forthcoming.

I actually understand and in a lot of ways agree with both you and JRandom.

There is a little more to it in that he thought he was sober and had stopped drinking a hours before he was called (he was asleep) to collect friends who's dedicated driver had let them down - he actually thought he was ok to drive and was trying to do the right thing. But - yes he was still over the limit.

Regardless - normally we would say pay and walk (hes already sold the car to pay the fines and purchased a bike) - so hes taking it seriously.

The problem comes in that he loses his citizenship application for another 3 years (has both job and relationship issues) and prevents him joining the fire brigade or police - his chosen professions.

I hear what you are saying - but its hard when you are a Dad. Having said that I wouldn't want to be the father of a kid who has been killed by a drink driver also.

[Tank]

Also - a thanks to all who have offered advise on the thread or via PM.


C

[madbikeboy]

Sorry to disappoint Madbikeboy - no red forthcoming.

I actually understand and in a lot of ways agree with both you and JRandom.

There is a little more to it in that he thought he was sober and had stopped drinking a hours before he was called (he was asleep) to collect friends who's dedicated driver had let them down - he actually thought he was ok to drive and was trying to do the right thing. But - yes he was still over the limit.

Regardless - normally we would say pay and walk (hes already sold the car to pay the fines and purchased a bike) - so hes taking it seriously.

The problem comes in that he loses his citizenship application for another 3 years (has both job and relationship issues) and prevents him joining the fire brigade or police - his chosen professions.

I hear what you are saying - but its hard when you are a Dad. Having said that I wouldn't want to be the father of a kid who has been killed by a drink driver also.

Okay, so tell the judge that, lay out the context, and you might find he will be leniant and agree a diversion or whatever. Whatever the outcome of the trial, he's already ahead on points - he hasn't killed anyone, and he doesn't have to live with the results.

Tank, you've always come across as a good guy, while I have some sympathy for you, and for your son's plight, at 22 years of age, he should have enough of a grasp to understand he was in no condition to drive, hours of sobering out don't equal sober.

But, if he was trying to do the right thing, then lay it out for the judge to decide, you will have an opportunity to present this if you ask.

[ynot slow]

In todays pc world,two things spring to light, 1)were/was person over limit yes/no,simple really breath alcohol or blood alcohol content,if over yep guilty.2)If a lawyer says I can get you off if this procedure did/didn't happen at time of arrest then good luck,more often the lawyers bill will be dearer than fine and you don't lose license,or the judge will say tough shit the reading does say over the limit,to bad and larger fine plus dodgey lawyer bill to boot.

And if like many without a load of traffic/criminal offences the disqualification will be maybe 6 months unless way over the limit.

[Toaster]

See the Court of Appeal item I just added. It specifies "police job sheets"

not required for EBA - be careful - other judgements are only of use if they are actually relevant to the facts of the case before them. there is more to it than you seem to think.

[Toaster]

Okay, so tell the judge that, lay out the context, and you might find he will be leniant and agree a diversion or whatever.

Diversion for drink driving? Yeah right.

[Toaster]

Personly if he is found guilty then he needs the book thrown at him but untill that happens dad or anyone else for that matter has the right to query the evidence or the lack of it.


Skyryder

What a double standard.... and here you are saying Scott Watson was innocent when found guilty on two charges of murder.

[jrandom]

... prevents him joining the fire brigade or police - his chosen professions.

Yeah... I'd say it'd be about time to start looking at different career ideas.

Because, let's face it, he did drive drunk, didn't he? He's not going to escape a conviction. Time to accept that and move on.

The Army's an option which would still be open to him if he's dead set on doing something that involves wearing a uniform and getting paid badly.

:crazy:

[Tank]

Okay, so tell the judge that, lay out the context, and you might find he will be leniant and agree a diversion or whatever.

Diversion or indeed a fine and 6 months walking without the criminal conviction are both out of the question with a EBA even if the Judge wanted to.


Yeah... I'd say it'd be about time to start looking at different career ideas.

Because, let's face it, he did drive drunk, didn't he? He's not going to escape a conviction. Time to accept that and move on.

The Army's an option which would still be open to him if he's dead set on doing something that involves wearing a uniform and getting paid badly.


:lol: - Being in NZ's Army is not something that would suit him somehow.

I've simply being try to find 'stuff' out to understand better. Im not basing anything substantial on this information - We have hired a lawyer who will make the decisions for him - it is based on his opinion that my son will make his plea.

Upshot is - like anyone else on criminal charges he IS entitled to a trial and any legal defense.

[scumdog]

There is a little more to it in that he thought he was sober and had stopped drinking a hours before he was called (he was asleep) to collect friends who's dedicated driver had let them down - he actually thought he was ok to drive and was trying to do the right thing. But - yes he was still over the limit.


OK people, a word to the wise for those that care/are prepared to take heed.

THE No.1 most dangerous time when drinking is when you have gone from the stage of: "Shee-it, man I feel way to pissed to drive" to a little time later (even after a sleep) "I don't feel so pissed now, yeah, I should be OK to drive".

When you get to the second stage there's a real danger you'll drive, thinking you're not that pissed.

But trust me, most of the time you will be well over.:yes:

Your body has 'adjusted' to the alcohol - but your judgement and reflexes haven't.

[Skyryder]

You just reworded my comment about the prevailing attitude that there is no moral culpability associated with a crime unless the police get the paperwork right.

:no:


Your alternitive is to suggest that with the paperwork wrong they should still be found guilty. Is that what you recommend as the burdon of proof. Tank was asking about disclosure. Should a defendent not have access to the eveidence that going to used against them?

Mind you we could take this a step further and do away with the police having to provide any evidence at all.

Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Upshot is - like anyone else on criminal charges he IS entitled to a trial and any legal defense.

And as his dad you have every right to act in his interests but if he pleads or is found guilty I for one would expect a good swift kick up the arse and to hell with Sue Bradford.:2guns:

[Tank]

And as his dad you have every right to act in his interests but if he pleads or is found guilty I for one would expect a good swift kick up the arse and to hell with Sue Bradford.:2guns:

That would be ANOTHER kick up the ass. He's had several. And he's beating himself up a lot about getting into this situation.

Im not talking 'oh fuck' I got caught - hes genuinely upset and ashamed that he was so stupid to get himself into such a position.

[marty]

Also - a thanks to all who have offered advise on the thread or via PM.


C

Sorry Tank but I have a lot of experience in the EBA process and prosecution field. A fair few beers, or spirits, need consuming for a male to blow over 500. 'I only had a couple' doesn't wash with me - I have 1st hand experience in just how much is needed to even exceed the limit - and that's going straight from the bottle to the machine - not having a sleep between.

You'll get full disclosure if you signal an intent to plead not guilty, or if you ask in writing for discovery prior to entering a plea. There is a process for receiving disclosure - you got the only thing that the prosecutor had a copy of in court - all the other evidential papers would only have had the originals on file, no copies, so you need to ask for those in writing to the prosecution office involved, and the file clerk will copy the file in its entirety and forward it to you.

[marty]

In fact i believe that if they have not disclosed the information to you, they cannot use it in evidence.

(deleted for space/bandwith)


Don't say a thing now just turn up in court with a copy of this judgement, say you asked for the evidence and show that you haven't received it.

They haven't yet, and my previous post explains why. Tank needs more than a 'I asked the prosecutor in court 4 weeks ago, and all he gave me was this summary' if he's trying to get his son off on insufficient discovery. The judge will simply remand it off for discovery to be handed over - it's unlikely they would let you ambush like that. The process goes both ways.

[scumdog]

Sorry Tank but I have a lot of experience in the EBA process and prosecution field. A fair few beers, or spirits, need consuming for a male to blow over 500. 'I only had a couple' doesn't wash with me - I have 1st hand experience in just how much is needed to even exceed the limit - and that's going straight from the bottle to the machine - not having a sleep between.

Empty stomach, 2hrs time frame and three big bottles of beer equal about 330 for this boy.

So like marty I know 'a couple of drinks' won't put you over.

And it takes many hours to drop back below the limit when you're about 600+

[Tank]

They haven't yet, and my previous post explains why. Tank needs more than a 'I asked the prosecutor in court 4 weeks ago, and all he gave me was this summary' if he's trying to get his son off on insufficient discovery. The judge will simply remand it off for discovery to be handed over - it's unlikely they would let you ambush like that. The process goes both ways.

Actually - I was trying to get information - I have no experience with this kind of thing. It just didnt sound 'right' - and now I know the full story.

We have a lawyer who will be looking at everything. Im not qualified even as a bush lawyer.

He may well say "just go guilty boy" (most likely I know) or he may say "fight it on grounds xxxx" - I guess I will find out soon enough.

[scumdog]

Actually - I was trying to get information - I have no experience with this kind of thing. It just didnt sound 'right' - and now I know the full story.

We have a lawyer who will be looking at everything. Im not qualified even as a bush lawyer.

He may well say "just go guilty boy" (most likely I know) or he may say "fight it on grounds xxxx" - I guess I will find out soon enough.

Unless the cop was a real klutz all the 'traditional' loop-holes will not get him off - they've been slowly getting closed as time goes by and fewer and fewer cases are being defended on 'technicalities' these days.

[Fatjim]

They haven't yet, and my previous post explains why. Tank needs more than a 'I asked the prosecutor in court 4 weeks ago, and all he gave me was this summary' if he's trying to get his son off on insufficient discovery. The judge will simply remand it off for discovery to be handed over - it's unlikely they would let you ambush like that. The process goes both ways.

Actually, that will probably depend on what mood the judge/JP is in.

[marty]

EBA is not dealt with by JPs as it carries a term of imprisonment. I have never seen a first call be thrown out due lack of disclosure.

[madbikeboy]

Empty stomach, 2hrs time frame and three big bottles of beer equal about 330 for this boy.

So like marty I know 'a couple of drinks' won't put you over.

And it takes many hours to drop back below the limit when you're about 600+

I'm an alien here, but the guideline that I use for booze and driving is complicated - if I am driving, I will have one beer. For the night, not each hour, but one beer total. Meaning a glass, not a keg.

Riding the bike is simpler. If I ride the bike, I won't consume alcohol within 24 hours, and if I've been drunk - I won't ride the bike for 48 hours. The rest of the world is trying to kill me when I'm on scoot, why help them by taking away any of my reflexes.

[OutForADuck]

Hey Tank, I feel for your sons position. Bad mistake and the costs might seem to outweigth the lack of judgement.

I recently took a friend through the same problem, same issues at stake too, citizenship and job etc. Much lower level though (infact lowest you can get and still be over).

But fact is the friend was still over the limit and eventually took the penalty. Knew the impact before hand just hadn't treated it with the degree of care she would have with hindsight. Guess your boys in that same position.

I spent years working in this field and can say you've got a lot of good advice here, Marty in particular seems to have the handle on the truth about it.

You've currently got full disclosure of the charge and will get full disclosure of the evidence when/if you ask and go not guitly (much of it won't be prepared until then).

Good luck with it, I can see you are as affected as your son and the only advice I can give is that as years pass by it will mean less and less to his life but the lessons will stay forever.

Follow your sense of justice both for your son and also for the community.

Seems to me you have a pretty good handle on both.


Good luck.

[CookMySock]

Here is an alternate line of thinking in this for you, Tank. Just an idea ok?

What do you really want for your son? Maybe he will be better served if you let him sink on this one. I know you want to protect him - thats just natural, but are you really helping? I'm not talking about a fine or the law, I'm talking about life.

My 15 y/o young fella L-Plater got a $170 speeding ticket - and I folded my arms and watched him sink and pay for it himself. It hurt him and it hurt me, but it was a critical lesson for him, and I got what I wanted out of it.

So whats really important to you, and what do you want from it?

best regards mate,
Steve

[Tank]

Here is an alternate line of thinking in this for you, Tank. Just an idea ok?

What do you really want for your son? Maybe he will be better served if you let him sink on this one. I know you want to protect him - thats just natural, but are you really helping? I'm not talking about a fine or the law, I'm talking about life.

My 15 y/o young fella L-Plater got a $170 speeding ticket - and I folded my arms and watched him sink and pay for it himself. It hurt him and it hurt me, but it was a critical lesson for him, and I got what I wanted out of it.

So whats really important to you, and what do you want from it?

best regards mate,
Steve


I hear what you are saying - but a few comments.

1 - What he did was stupid - but he actually made a call to drive thinking he was 'ok' - It was stupid and idiotic and wrong - but he honestly thought he was OK - ref Scummys comment above.

2 - Neither he or his friends would condone driving drunk - I know that they always have dedicated sober drivers,and have on occasion been asked to drive them. In the 5 years since he has been drinking (prob more I know) I have NEVER seen him have a single beer if he was going to be driving that day. (he lived at home waaaay to long).

3 - Has he learnt his lesson? - well - hes so remorseful its not funny. He has really taken it to heart. Do I think he would ever do it again? - Hell Id bet my bike he wouldn't.

But - what is he losing?

His career choice - for life - no chance to join the police or become a fire fighter. Thats a biggie.

His NZ Citizenship for another 3 years - that has HUGE personal and relationship issues for him (I select not to give details about this part - but enough to say that the losses to him would be mammoth).

A man doesn't have to lose everything (and with the personal issues - it is close to everything for him) to learn a lesson.

Hell if he got a 5k fine and couldn't drive for 18 months because of this he would be accepting it with a smile on his face as a lesson learnt.

[CookMySock]

A man doesn't have to lose everything (and with the personal issues - it is close to everything for him) to learn a lesson.Nah you're right there bro. Watching with interest.

Steve

[madbikeboy]

Consequence is a bitch. Small things, like checking a cell phone at the wrong time, and killing a cyclist, a small thing with a huge consequence. Driving drunk, just a bit over the limit, the consequence, two family members, from two separate times (with little apparent remorse).

I'm separating out the actions of your 22 year old son who thought he was okay from the recidivist drunk (my view is that those fuckers should be shot, and when I stage my coup d'etat, that'll be what happens). For your son, immense consequences, for his future career, for his current job, for his relationship, for citizenship. But, two arms, two legs, he's in one piece, and lucky for him, so is everyone else that he didn't hit that night. Perspective.

[Max Preload]

Let's not forget about this little fiasco (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10476741)... and Police stated policy (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0803/S00176.htm). Note: You only need to be charged, not convicted to have it count against you.

To be quite frank, I think his particular career choices are down the toilet.

[slofox]

A man doesn't have to lose everything (and with the personal issues - it is close to everything for him) to learn a lesson.


Agreed 100%.

[Patrick]

His career choice - for life - no chance to join the police or become a fire fighter. Thats a biggie.

.

When I did a stint in recruiting, we were taking on people with EBA convictions that were older than 5 years ago. I have seen the policy posted just above, which is what was in place back then, but the full circumstances were taken into account. (Age, level, how they were sprung, how they behaved, etc...). But therein lies theproblem - it had to be 5 years old.

He can try for the result that the St Kents girl got, but she too will strike the 5 year barrier, if she bothered to apply, and IF it is still in place.

As for the disclosure, it has been called correctly earlier. There will be no copies on the file at the first appearance, but on request, you will be able to get the breath test result, the EBA check list, the bill of rights form and the advice of a positive result form. There "may" be notebook entries, but the check list is designed to be "notes made at the time" of the procedures done, step by step... this day and age there will not be a procedural stuff up sorry.

Dunno the fireys policy on drink driving, but I would imagine it is the same as Police, as they have to cut them out......... and as a result, will not be sympathetic to the cause?

A personal plea from your son, in person and with emotions running free, is really the best way that I can see a good result, sorry....

[woodybee]

Instead of fighting something that looks like it is correct - meaning that his blood/alcohol exceeds the limit, and at 528, he's well over the limit - why aren't you instead telling your son to get his shit together and not drive drunk. That way people like those who I have lost as a result of moronic people who choose to drink and drive, would be alive and I'd be a happier person.

Red bling accepted gracefully (as I'm sure it's on its way).There's no red bling for you mate, I entirely agree with you.

Everyone who does wrong should get convicted...................there is no defence for drink driving................Being a cop in the UK for years, I hated drink drivers, I went to so many fatals and it always seemed to be the innocent ones who had no alcohol in their system that died, the drunk drivers seemed beyond all comprehension to walk away unscathed.

Everyone should be taking responsibility for their actions.

Don't get childish just coz things havent gone your way, if your son hadn't drunk he wouldn't be in the position he is in now would he..

If that sounds harsh, mate I don't care, drink drivers didn't give a shit when they were arrested, they thought they were above the law and would try everything to get off it as they would loose so much.....well poor them....

I know what you are trying to get to hear about the Police Procedures, but I totally agree with mad biker boy.......................look at what could have happened, didn''t and thank the lucky stars above, that he didn't drive off the road into a ditch and suffer severe/fatal injury, or cause the death or severe injry of another.

You takes your chance.....you pay the price.......

Woodybee

[Winston001]

But - what is he losing?

His career choice - for life - no chance to join the police or become a fire fighter. That's a biggie.

We're sympathetic Tank but life is tough and not always fair. There are firefighters, police officers, doctors, and lawyers, with convictions. What generally happens is they have to choose another career path for a while to prove their character and then, if they have the qualifications etc, they get accepted.

No help I know, but people with dope convictions can't get into the USA or various other countries, yet many would consider that unfair. Heck, you can't get into Australia if you have certain convictions - ironic eh. :laugh:


His NZ Citizenship for another 3 years - that has HUGE personal and relationship issues for him (I select not to give details about this part - but enough to say that the losses to him would be mammoth).

Patience, he'll get there.


A man doesn't have to lose everything (and with the personal issues - it is close to everything for him) to learn a lesson.

Hell if he got a 5k fine and couldn't drive for 18 months because of this he would be accepting it with a smile on his face as a lesson learnt.

Same deal for young med/law students. They have to take a step back and wait.

If you can actually prove the consequences you are worried about, there is a small chance the judge might bend the law. Judges can do this - I remember one looking at the press bench and telling them not to write anything down. There is mercy.

However proof of the consequences doesn't mean you or the solicitor just telling the judge - that is far too weak. You'd need someone to give expert evidence. You'd also need evidence as to your son's character. Worth thinking about but you'd have to combine it with a guilty plea pretty quick.

[Genestho]

Tank I believe I had blinged you at some stage for calling the cops on a weaving drink driver, who crashed into a ditch.

Ive read all of this, and itd be quite easy to rant in regards to this post.
Im not going to.

Obviously your young son, has got big plans and thats great, good for him.

I'm not going to peg your son for the same type of drink-driver, with a lifetime of habits and mentality that killed my husband and friends.

Hes just uneducated as are so many that make the mistake of thinking theyre ok to drive

But coming from a practical place - as a parent, the thing about todays society, is that our kids are not expected to take consequences and learn from their actions.

Good on you for supporting your son, but sometimes supporting is about teaching too.

Id like to have had the opportunity for my young sons to learn from their Dad, be supported, taught right from wrong..

But yeah, he was killed by a drunk driver.

Just think about it....


Thats all I have to say Tank, sorry to bust in when your just trying to stand by your son. Cheers

[Tank]

There's no red bling for you mate, I entirely agree with you.

Just to be clear - I didn't red bling him either - he raises a fair point - and I commented on that.

Everyone who does wrong should get convicted...................there is no defence for drink driving................Being a cop in the UK for years, I hated drink drivers, I went to so many fatals and it always seemed to be the innocent ones who had no alcohol in their system that died, the drunk drivers seemed beyond all comprehension to walk away unscathed.

Everyone should be taking responsibility for their actions.

You may or may not be able to tell from my post - but Im a great believer of this also. The 'issue' comes in when the impact on some is greater than others - remember the ban from the Police is for life (according to the recruiting officers he has spoken to). Police officers have been found guilty of Drink driving and are allowed to keep their jobs - yet my son could be perfect in every way for the next 15 years and still not be allowed to join for something that happened way back now. If the recruiting policy was different (like 5 years stand down) then he could take it on the chin.

Don't get childish just coz things havent gone your way, if your son hadn't drunk he wouldn't be in the position he is in now would he..

I dont believe I have been childish anywhere in this thread - hell I take it very seriously.

If that sounds harsh, mate I don't care, drink drivers didn't give a shit when they were arrested, they thought they were above the law and would try everything to get off it as they would loose so much.....well poor them....

Indeed - but as a Police officer you must agree that a person is innocent until found guilty and is entitled to a trial if his lawyer recommends it?


I know what you are trying to get to hear about the Police Procedures, but I totally agree with mad biker boy.......................look at what could have happened, didn''t and thank the lucky stars above, that he didn't drive off the road into a ditch and suffer severe/fatal injury, or cause the death or severe injry of another.

I know this and Im very aware of this - and so is he. This is what feels so heavy on my shoulders at the moment
You takes your chance.....you pay the price.......

Woodybee


We're sympathetic Tank but life is tough and not always fair. There are firefighters, police officers, doctors, and lawyers, with convictions. What generally happens is they have to choose another career path for a while to prove their character and then, if they have the qualifications etc, they get accepted.

Sorry Winston - he have been told that the ban from joining the Police is absolutely for life - no chance even if he proves his character for the next 15 years.

No help I know, but people with dope convictions can't get into the USA or various other countries, yet many would consider that unfair. Heck, you can't get into Australia if you have certain convictions - ironic eh. :laugh:

Difference is that most charges drop off your record after 10 years - This does not - as mentioned its a life ban from applying.
Patience, he'll get there.



Same deal for young med/law students. They have to take a step back and wait.

If you can actually prove the consequences you are worried about, there is a small chance the judge might bend the law. Judges can do this - I remember one looking at the press bench and telling them not to write anything down. There is mercy.

However proof of the consequences doesn't mean you or the solicitor just telling the judge - that is far too weak. You'd need someone to give expert evidence. You'd also need evidence as to your son's character. Worth thinking about but you'd have to combine it with a guilty plea pretty quick.

We would have done this is there was a chance - but there is no diversion and no discharge without conviction (ie fines and walking but no criminal charge) (we have been told) for EBA - The Judge cannot be lenient even if he wants to be.



Tank I believe I had blinged you at some stage for calling the cops on a weaving drink driver, who crashed into a ditch.

Ive read all of this, and itd be quite easy to rant in regards to this post.
Im not going to.

Obviously your young son, has got big plans and thats great, good for him.

I'm not going to peg your son for the same type of drink-driver, with a lifetime of habits and mentality that killed my husband and friends.

Hes just uneducated as are so many that make the mistake of thinking theyre ok to drive

But coming from a practical place - as a parent, the thing about todays society, is that our kids are not expected to take consequences and learn from their actions.

Good on you for supporting your son, but sometimes supporting is about teaching too.

Id like to have had the opportunity for my young sons to learn from their Dad, be supported, taught right from wrong..

But yeah, he was killed by a drunk driver.

Just think about it....


Thats all I have to say Tank, sorry to bust in when your just trying to stand by your son. Cheers


I replied privatley in a PM - Thanks for your post.

[sidecar bob]

Sorry Tank but I have a lot of experience in the EBA process and prosecution field. A fair few beers, or spirits, need consuming for a male to blow over 500.

Have to agree, Having drunk a bit of piss at police stations & played around with the breath test machines, i can absolutely confirm that even at 400 you know you are becoming well pissed.

[madbikeboy]

Tank, I respect you, and there is no issue there, and I read your post above, thanks for not red blinging me.

There are alternatives for meaningful careers - I couldn't be a police officer, the job would be too challenging for me, and they'd vet me out in a matter of minutes with my less than level-headed approach for drunk drivers and wife beaters. The Army offers a good skills package, not a bad salary if you work into education and cost of living into the equation - plus your son would ge an extended family and discipline. There's also the Navy - for me this would have been a very real career choice, but instead I went to Uni for seven years and got a BA in fine arts (kidding). My grandfather was in during WW2, and into Korea.

There's also the Australian Armed forces as well.

My point is, there are always lots of alternatives available. If this door has swung shut, there will be other opportunities. Get your son to chat to the recruting people (my preference would be Navy), he might be pleasantly surprised what it will do for him career wise, and also in terms of citizenship. It is also a truism, that people from one uniform branch often find it easier to get into another if they have a distinguished career.

[BiK3RChiK]

The time to think about his career choices going down the toilet would have been before getting behind the wheel!

I have no sympathy for drunk drivers... I was 20 years old when hit head-on by a 17 year old drunk driver at 5 O'Clock in the afternoon, after he lost control of the weapon he was driving. He TOTALLY destroyed both vehicles upon impact and very nearly killed himself and severely injured both of us, although as I was in the much bigger vehicle I came off less injured than him. However, I have life-long injuries and suffer with pain almost every waking minute. Most of the time I don't notice now, but at times it can be very severe. This incident has cost me dearly both financially and emotionally ( what with not being able to do the things I enjoy with my family, to the extent I enjoy sometimes, and then there's the cost of chiropractors and osteopaths - even with ACC!).

Anyone who decides to get behind the wheel of a car after even having a 'few' needs their head read! The irony is that his career choices would have shown him first-hand the horrors of drinking and driving...

I tell my kids not even to think about driving after having even one drink. I'd rather pick them up, even if it's 3 O'Clock in the morning than have them get behind the wheel or get into a car with some other driver who has been drinking!

[scumdog]

[COLOR="darkorange"]I The 'issue' comes in when the impact on some is greater than others - remember the ban from the Police is for life (according to the recruiting officers he has spoken to). Police officers have been found guilty of Drink driving and are allowed to keep their jobs - yet my son could be perfect in every way for the next 15 years and still not be allowed to join for something that happened way back now.


Hmmm, curious about this - can anybody name a cop convicted of EBA and who kept their job.

And I'm not counting the one cop who took the vital equipment to a serious crash and got nailed for EBA.

[Indoo]

Hmmm, curious about this - can anybody name a cop convicted of EBA and who kept their job.

And I'm not counting the one cop who took the vital equipment to a serious crash and got nailed for EBA.

Can't think of any serving cop, although there was some wealthy student from a private school who got a discharge without conviction on the grounds it would destroy her lifelong ambition to become a cop (wonder if that was before or after she got caught).

You have to be very pissed to fail a test, if that was his lifelong ambition it obviously wasn't a very important one if he was so willing to risk it.

[Patrick]

Hmmm, curious about this - can anybody name a cop convicted of EBA and who kept their job.

And I'm not counting the one cop who took the vital equipment to a serious crash and got nailed for EBA.

I bet there isn't one.

I suppose the turn around from a few years ago (allowing those with 5yr old convictions for EBA to join) might have had something to do with the fact that decision flew in the face of those who had been given the boot for exactly the same thing.

[Tank]

Hmmm, curious about this - can anybody name a cop convicted of EBA and who kept their job.

And I'm not counting the one cop who took the vital equipment to a serious crash and got nailed for EBA.


I bet there isn't one.

I suppose the turn around from a few years ago (allowing those with 5yr old convictions for EBA to join) might have had something to do with the fact that decision flew in the face of those who had been given the boot for exactly the same thing.

Sorry Gentlemen - I stand corrected.



You have to be very pissed to fail a test, if that was his lifelong ambition it obviously wasn't a very important one if he was so willing to risk it.

Indoo - you may want to read the entire thread before you make the assumption that he was "so willing to risk it".

[spudchucka]

You have to be very pissed to fail a test, i

Have tested that theory numerous times myself and have always been utterly shocked at just how pissed 400 micrograms actually is. When I first joined the job I always felt a bit sorry for the punters that were just over the limit but after my numerous "scientific" tests I'm afraid that I don't feel any sympathy at all, (not meaning to have a poke at your boy with that comment though Tank, sorry if it offends but I've seen that many pissed drivers that have only had "two beers" that I've lost my sympathetic nature over time).

[Patrick]

Have tested that theory numerous times myself and have always been utterly shocked at just how pissed 400 micrograms actually is. When I first joined the job I always felt a bit sorry for the punters that were just over the limit but after my numerous "scientific" tests I'm afraid that I don't feel any sympathy at all, (not meaning to have a poke at your boy with that comment though Tank, sorry if it offends but I've seen that many pissed drivers that have only had "two beers" that I've lost my sympathetic nature over time).

+1.......... Multiply the response to the question by 3. "I've had 2 beers" actually equals a minimum of 6.....

Tank, having read these threads, your lad could quite possibly be the one and only exception though.