Failure to Provide a Specimen of Breath | Traffic Loophole Series e.1 | BlackBeltBarrister
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 июл 2021
- 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
💌 Become a channel member to access stripes and perks!
/ @blackbeltbarrister
MY CAMERA GEAR
🎥 Big Camera amzn.to/3tW8nPU
🎥 Small Camera amzn.to/2RB7ez9
🎙 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 🎓 Brilliant contract law book:
amzn.to/2PHC2O1 🎓 Excellent book with an overview of criminal law:
amzn.to/3gTPEAV 🎓 Learn more about trespass and tort law:
amzn.to/32N6TLS
(Affiliate link)
LAW FAQS
• Common Law
CONSUMER LAW PLAYLIST:
• Consumer Law
TREE LAW PLAYLIST:
• Tree Law Miniseries
ROAD TRAFFIC LAW PLAYLIST:
• Road Traffic Law
FAMILY LAW PLAYLIST:
• 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.
![Sean Rii, Karyon, Sharzkii - Taungule [My Love] (Official Music Video)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eJoMuypbSzQ/mqdefault.jpg)
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
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.
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_ .
Is it just me but when a police car follows you in normal traffic in general I automatically feel nervous 😅
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!
Very interesting verdict and explanation. It isn’t applicable in Scotland though as firstly trespass doesn’t 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.
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; ”Something”. Then climbing in through the window as you tell them to “Get off my property “. Yet they enter regardless of your command to them to leave the property?
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.
Private property law and implied rights of entry and their revocations worth remembering....
Very interesting case law
Imagine waking up and becoming a study of case law. The cop had no idea.
Fascinating and so many comments. I'm curious if the loophole has been closed by any subsequent revisions?
Interesting storey, thanks for sharing.
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
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?
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.. 😬
Thank you, but don't get stopped for drinking PG tips whilst driving lol
I have just discovered your RUclips 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.
do section 33 of the criminal justice act 1972 “Public place” includes any highway and any other premises or place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise ”. can i record in any shopping centre under this act.
I don't drink and drive but very interesting! Thankyou for sharing,
Interesting as always. (This case reminds me of Nick Freeman - ‘Mr. Loophole’ - 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..? That’s 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 you’ll 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.
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?
Thanks, love your channel.
Glad you enjoy it!
So, had they arrested him for section 4 RTA rather than request a breath sample, there wouldn’t have been an issue. The evidential breath test provided in custody would have been admissible. Interesting.
Interesting thank you!
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?
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. 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
Hi is there any chance you could clear up the conundrum of £20 £50 £100 coins being legal tender or not.
Great content well done
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 isn’t the lesser offence it is an either way offence so the police would have a power of entry, drink driving is summary only
Acts of Parliament, and "The Law," do not apply to every human automatically. Please could you make a video clarifying this most fundamental question?
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.
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.
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.
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 I’m guessing it would be self defence and reasonable force through fearing for your life and property.
New sub this happened to me and they just put cuffs on me and when I went to cop shop they said I didn’t blow into test which I did 2 yrs off Rd and £2000 outta pocket wish I hadda knew this then great video
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.
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.
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 😉 know when you have beaten the system and obviously move 😂👍they'll be watching
@@robmarrin6720 That's presumably the perfect time to go for the grand slam?!
@@PeterDBlackburn thank you for this info x.
Got a question about mutual recognition of disqualification between Ireland and the UK how is that legal 🤔
English and Irish (RoI) law is very similar though not completely identical. There maybe some differences between Scottish and Irish law as there is between English and Scottish law. However when the UK was part of the EU during the later period not only could drivers/riders be persued in another EU country also the fine/sentence would appear on individuals licence. So if you were fined in France for a driving offence that could appear on your UK licence.
My understanding is that both governments have signed agreements to the effect that they will recognise mutual disqualifications.
This is due to the fact that in both UK and Ireland, the law ref disqualification is broadly similar. Ie mostly drink driving matters or dangerous drivinc.
There is no mutual recognition of penalty points. Ie three points for speeding in UK will not equate to points on a shadow Irish licence. This is cos both jurisdictions are quite different as to how they give points.
Scotland is interesting.
Drink drive limit is 22ug.
Rest of UK is 35ug.
So a Welshman is caught in Dundee driving with 30 ug of alcohol in his breath.
He is disqualified.
Disqualified in one part of UK equals disqualification in all UK. Even though driving with 30ug is legal in his own town etc.
Fascinating. I love these quirks.
How does this right to access and withdrawing it, apply to those who live in a private rented property?
Civil trespass and having a contract for habitation (tort) are separate. There are mechanisms in place to prevent people becoming homeless.
Whether you actually own the property or not I do not believe is relevant. If you are paying rent to live there as your home then you have the same rights for the time you are there as someone with a mortgage would have.
Do we know if this is why Section 4 RTA was created? Driving whilst unfit? As that has a power of entry attached. Thanks
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 😋
Can I legally revoke the access to my property for Bailiffs, the police, and TV Licensing (Capita) with a simple notice on my door? Could use the same notice for my X Wife to stay away from my house?
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 🧐
Does the implementation of the Police and Criminal evidence act or any additional modern legalization change how this would play out today?
@mandellorian just because you’ve had a drink doesn’t mean you are unfit. The officer has to provide evidence that you were drunk or appeared impaired for S4
Can anyone answer these questions for me? In the days of the "blow in the bag" breathalyser it was necessary to blow quite strongly into the bag in order to correctly register a result. If one failed to do so you could be arrested for failing to provide a sample of breath and taken to the Police Station and asked for a sample of blood or urine.
I now suffer with a significant reduction in lung capacity due to damage from Covid, which may well be permanent, so this is relevant to me.
Question 1) Does the current electronic breathalyser still need a fairly strong blow to register a result?
2) If one is unable to provide such a sample due to lung damage, is there still an option to provide blood or urine?
25 years ago I got a 12 month ban an a £ 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.
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
My question is had the officers retreated to the public road and requested the breath test from there would that have been legal. Up until the tie they were asked to leave, they had the opportunity to smell the mans breath and be suspicious prior to having their right of access revoked. Effectively, having retreated to the public footpath, could their demand for a breath test then be classified as legal?
It would have been lawful if they had made the requirement prior to being asked to leave.
Would the police, in this instance, not be entitled to approach and remain on his property if they had reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed, ie drink driving?
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 £100 fine, kept my licence though (I think it was just before points were introduced).
So after winning the case is there any compensation as such?
Got any advice on family law? How to win agaist social? I was cohersed by the judge. And also lied to by social workers
Hello, would entering under s.17 PACE to arrest a person for an offence under section 4 (driving etc. when under influence of drink or drugs) RTA 1988 apply here? Thanks
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.
Hey Mr B.
Here's one. Got a campervan, had a few beers sleeping in campervan in either a pub car park ( pubs permission) or on a campsite or in a public field?
You need to be on gated private land, inaccessible to public is the lawful answer
If you had not driven it on a public road, you would not have committed an offence but in the morning, you could well still be over the limit and be prosecuted.
@@honestchris7472 Incorrect, there is driving under influence and in charge under the influence. The only 100% safe way is private, gated land inaccessible to the general public.
I was once told by a senior officer, if you are drunk in charge of a car let's say with no engine, up on bricks, on public land you have a potential to still be arrested.
@@travispagent937 I was obviously thinking about leaving the pub and then driving on the public road in the morning. I really don`t believe what that senior officer said to you could possibly be true, a vehicle with no engine up on bricks is not a motor vehicle, it is no more than a metal box. I think that he was winding you up.
@@honestchris7472 Ah I wasn't aware of your 'obvious' thoughts that differ to the op's question entirely. I assumed you were answering with regards to being over the limit of alcohol, sleeping in a campervan in a public freehouse (pub) carpark or a public layby (campsites are fine imo as usually gated) and not which ever question you answered.
No a drink driving course actually, with the wordage of the law verbatim. You think the law will list all parts and an acceptable level where its ok to be drunk in charge of said vehicle?
Vin number, v5, dvla registered = motor vehicle
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
Was he done for speeding?
Also you said the officers were allowed by the owner into his home.
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.
Your are required to supply a breath sample to an officer in uniform does that mean if he is plain clothes (Not in uniform) do you have to give a sample?
You don't even need to stop for a none marked police car if the person inside isn't in uniform.
And as far as I can recall breath samples can only be taken by police officers in uniform.
So the answer would be no you do not need to give the plain clothes cop a breath sample as they legally don't have the right to take it.
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.
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.
you deserve more viewers
Do you have any case law or dealings, in regards to human powered vehicles/pedal power and breathalysers...?
Only the driver of a motor vehicle can be required to provide a breath test.
It is an offence to cycle whilst drunk.
There is no legal limit.
And there is no power to demand a breath test but police can ask.
This offence will come down to police observations. E.g. He was in a pub, folk said he was drinking, he appeared unsteady.
Even if proved, it is still a fairly minor offence. No power to mess with a driving lucence, if held.
@@geordiewishart1683 Cycling whilst drunk tends to have a certain limiting factor; the ability to balance... and as far as I'm aware, that is the only factor that can be used against you. There will always be a certain amount of wobble and weave on a bicycle anyway, but that should be taken into account. I guess any offence would come down to being drunk and incapable then...
Would that apply to private property other than the defendants? Say he went to visit a friend perhaps.
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 ?
Hello There.
Could you please explain the difference between "Not Guilty" & "Innocent"
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
@@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.
Interesting, wonder what's more serious a drunk driving charge or a failure to stop when asked by the police, as it seems you can avoid a former by just keeping driving till you get home!
Presumably at some point the police are allowed to assume that you won't stop, and since there could be all manner of reasons for you not stopping they'd be allowed to essentially radio into their fellow officers to try and cordon you off.
What is your opinion if the officers, whilst in the house, arrested the defendant on suspicion of driving on a road whilst unfit through drink or drugs and not asking for a specimen of breath.
It would have been fine, but that only came about after this case.
Very interesting 🤔
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.
Can you please assist with my question .I wish to opt out of NHS data sharing . But doctors won't give a receipt for opt out form .They don't have any to give out also.
You can opt out on the NHS website if you do a search..😀
phone them. they will tell you they can't do it. they can and have to.
Doesnt make any difference, they can still share your data in an 'emergency' ie covid
@@phillyb8347 You're probably right. they do what they want.
I asked about heel prick test for babys and what happened to the sample etc. It was ongoing for years to get any kind of answer. They still have them!
I believe now it is to get everyone's DNA from birth onto their database. But I do not have any evidence for that. But why wouldn't they. The government has shown time and again that lying is Ok. As look as it's the government doing it. And by extension the Police.
Can you recommend or suggest any legal card games or board games? I have one which has some cases you can try and work out the verdict, though I can't remember the name as my friend in London has got it. As a 'gamer' I like lookout out for real life crime or legal games. I do like your videos on specific cases.
That sounds interesting. I'd like to know too.
@6:30 Does this imply that a sign reading "police keep out" would hold any weight? Obviously any warrant or overriding permission could exist but without these overrides would such a sign prevent police from acting under the belief of implied access?
The answer to that is yes,this happens with people trying to avoid the tv license,but a case still proceeds in court and because of the sign on the gate denying access, the magistrates get suspicious,and allow the police to get a warrant,to tread on said property. police keep out,i dont think so!,,but any right to access the property is denied,There is an official way to word that, you can find that online!. But means yes they cannot enter,as guilty of trespass,and would need a official ,warrant,from a judge on paper. sometimes the police try to bypass that,when you ask to see the warrant,by flashing a piece of paper in front of you for a second.then you you ask give me the paper i want to read it, And they say no i showed you it! Baliffs do this too. and they dont have a warrant. They have to actualy hand you the warrant to read, if it is not a warrant, and they are in front of your door,ignoring the sign. they are guilty of trespass.
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, under S8 RTA 1972, no police officer above the rank of constable may . . . ?
@08:18...
The Defendant was never Guilty of any offence as No evidential sample was taken ?
I got stitched up badly with failing to provide!
I wasn’t even driving and I wasn’t 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 I’d been arrested for?
To which the arresting replied! Suspicions ABH oh and drink driving!! I said sorry ? What are you talking about? Drink driving?
I’ve not been drink driving
Then another officer about 20 ft away going through a filing cabinet! Sarcastically said “Breathalyser”
And I said I’m not giving you a breathalyser!
They said it’s ok the cctv will prove you were driving! I said no it won’t because I wasn’t
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 £758
I’m a truck driver and it’s ruined my life!
10 points stay on your licence for 11 years!
It’s destroyed my chances of getting a job I want and I’ve been exploited by wankers that have taken me on and used the points against me!
I’ve never put a foot wrong driving and I’ve got about 3 years left till the points clear!
But what scumbags the police are!
Complete lies
I don’t 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 )
Could you set a fee to provide a breath sample?
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.
there was video of a man who refused to give a breath test and was arrested and taken to a police station but he faced no further charges and was "let go!" this video has since been taken down! I wonder if you have seen this and why this person wasn't charged?
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.
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.
It all goes down to a warrant less search of his property. After all the police enforce the law that doesn’t mean they can break law just to catch a guilty man, although he was likely to have been guilty.
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
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.
Does the right to revoke permission for the police to be on private property apply to rented accommodation too?
What about if you run out of your vehicle and quickly drink before they stop you. What would happen then. Would it not invalidate the test
No, it won't invalidate the test.
That's called the 'hip flask defence' and was tried as a defence eons ago, shortly after drink drive legislation was written.
@@robertstallard7836 friend of mine left the pub and drove home drunk with no problems but someone reported him and police turned up at his house and even though he had been in his house for over an hour the police said they could still charge him and he lost his licence.
How do the police calculate the amount of alcohol in your system in this situation??
In theory he could have been under the limit but drunk more once home?
@@boriscorruption7385 Yes, but it's not up to the police to prove by back-calculation that someone was over the limit when the incident occurred. The presumption is that, unless evidence is given to the contrary by the defence , the amount of alcohol in the body when tested is the same as when the offence was committed (except, of course, for the slightly reduced amount due to the body disposing of the alcohol from the bloodstream, as happens naturally after drinking).
What will happen when post-incident consumption is alleged, is that the bottle of alcohol, glass etc. will be seized. The defendant will then be interviewed to ascertain a whole host of things such as amount consumed, what was consumed, over what period, what had been eaten etc.
From that, a back-calculation is made to determine what the defendant's blood-alcohol level would have been before he consumed the additional alcohol.
Provided the figure arrived at from the information provided by the defendant corresponds with what it would have been based on the actual reading, (and that figure is below the legal limit) then the defence is sound.
If not, then he will be convicted.
@@robertstallard7836 thanks for the reply,
@@boriscorruption7385 No problem.
(I used to do it for a living!).
In a nut-shell, whilst people think they may have a new defence that no-one else has ever thought of, there are tomes of "stated cases" on drink-drive legislation going back to the 1960s and before. You name it, it will have been tried before and a prescedent set.
In many cases, legislation, equipment or police procedure will have been updated to cover them.
I have a question... I know someone who was in the same scenario. The said person had been out drinking and a member of the public reported them to the police after they saw said person get in to their car. The police eventually found the car and followed it when the driver pulled up outside their house and entered there driveway on foot.
The police stopped the person still on their driveway and sanded a breath test after suspicion of drinking driving. Now this was carried out and eventually the person was arrested on the basis of driving under the influence and later charged. It was taken to court and the person lost their licence and fined.
Am I right to say that this shouldn't have happened
Oh dear, what a shame, too bad.
No. Perfectly lawful procedure. The man was over the limit and rightly lost his licence.
Fantastic stuff. Can you please advise on my step dad ringing my place of work, the Fire Service. Reporting me of drinking and taking drugs. Obviously I don't do either. I have contacted your company and the service was pretty poor to be honest. The step dad issues continues.
Get a restraining order/cease & desist. Any breach and he's arrested.
@@PeterMaddison2483 thanks for this but been told this will cost £1000s. Someone with a pig farm would be better... Thanks again
@@mrsimo7144 OMG! I never knew it would be that much.
if the police don't find any evidence you don't need to be worried.
It would be tragic if the police found a bag of serious drugs under the seat of your step dad's car......and that the quantity is enough for a "supplying" charge.
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
🤣🤣🤣🤣 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.
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 exception…the barrister should update the video.. the law has been updated since that case in 1981..😂😂😂
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.
Whats the law on going through a red light camera when 1. There's a tailgator behind and 2. The light changed so fast slamming on from the position would have put you over the line when the light changed to red.
Get yourself a rear facing dash cam. Brush this one off. If you appeal they’ll want reasonable reason with evidence
Lights don`t change fast, there is a sequence that shows an amber light alone and that it followed shortly after by a red light, plenty of time for you to stop without having to "slam" on your brakes. If you need to brake harshly, you are going too fast.
You shouldn’t be approaching a green light at the speed limit you should always anticipate it will change and ease off the accelerator. If you’re that worried about being tail gated just let them pass you
@@honestchris7472 depends on the light, I know someone who worked on traffic light and often used to fix them as faulty
Thanks for the replies. I do have forward and rear cameras. They show the tailgater on my bumper from a 20 zone to the 30. He had ample opportunities to overtake and didn't. The forward camera shows me on the 3 lines, the red light camera uses, when amber turned to red, a good car length from the stop line. So I'm well into the junction. Its been nearly 2 weeks now and i haven't heard anything.
How can someone so particular say the letter O instead of number zero when quoting numbers
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.