Non-cooperation?

sopretty

Hello there,
About 1 month ago I was bagged and failed breathalyser on side of road.
I was brought to the garda station and went to the toilet.
Guards then gave me the option of either a urine or blood sample.
As I had just 'been', I said they should take a blood sample.
Doctor after approx. 5/10 minutes trying, couldn't get blood from either of my arms. He then stated that I had been uncooperative (I told him that the fact the he was a muppet of a doctor, didn't mean that I had been uncooperative) - for this wee moment of wisdom, I think I could be charged with threatening or abusive behaviour to a garda or something. I'm sorry, but what could I have done but present him with both of my arms?
In the heel of the hunt I wasn't issued with any charge, but have charges pending I believe, for which they have 6 months from the date of the incident to issue me with.
I'm just wondering has anyone ever heard of anything like this happening?
Where do I stand?
I spoke to a solicitor who seemed a little vague....
As far as I know it's 4 years off the road automatically for failure to cooperate, but I did bloomin' cooperate!
Oh btw, if you wish to go off on a rant about driving after consuming alcohol, please try to save your lectures for the unconverted or non-converted even......

nutts_77

I have no doubt that you didn't cooperate, so take your punishment, whatever it may be...

Absurdum

I can't comment on any of the charges but I regularly donate blood and on several occasions the nurse/doctor has been unable to get any blood out (or whatever the medical term is) after inserting the needle into my arm. Perhaps you could speak to an independent doctor who would be willing to testify on your behalf regarding this? Did the Garda or doctor not ask you to provide a urine sample after this?

SV

nutts_77 wrote: »

I have no doubt that you didn't cooperate, so take your punishment, whatever it may be...

:rolleyes:
#GTFO

sopretty

Hi, thanks for the message. No the doctor or guards didn't subsequently request a urine sample. Which the solicitor found strange.
The solicitor seemed to be only able to speculate as to what charges they might issue me with.....
Funnily enough, I was in hospital about a week ago and the nurse who takes blood tried to get blood at one stage and said that she had found the vein but had used too big of a needle, so she then had to try with a smaller needle, so maybe that's why the doc couldn't get blood?
I just fail to see how much more I could have cooperated apart from producing my arms?

sopretty

it's not as if I have the art of 'holding my blood in' or anything......

sopretty

btw - if there's a more appropriate board I should be posting on, please let me know, as I'm new to this site and this was the most relevant board I could find..... Thanks.

Absurdum

sopretty wrote: »

btw - if there's a more appropriate board I should be posting on, please let me know, as I'm new to this site and this was the most relevant board I could find..... Thanks.

Legal Discussion

sopretty

thanks absurdum - hopefully I won't get annihilated over there!!!
ah well, perhaps I should just suck in my blood and take my punishment! :rolleyes:

Atlantic Dawn

Were you drinking, yes, did you fail a breath test, yes, were you pi$$ed,most likely yes. Take your punishment and refrain from putting the rest of us on the roads at risk from your selfishness.

sopretty

I'll bear that in mind Atlantic..........
I never said I wasn't prepared to take my punishment, I'm just trying to find out what punishment that may be!

sopretty

well i posted over there as suggested, received one reply and the thread was promptly locked! lol........ I'm not sure I'm able for this place at all......
Do I receive a reason for a thread being locked?

Absurdum

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Were you drinking, yes, did you fail a breath test, yes, were you pi$$ed,most likely yes. Take your punishment and refrain from putting the rest of us on the roads at risk from your selfishness.

well, so far we know that only one of those is true, maybe you shouldn't jump to conclusions....

Berty

You're never going to get much pity here and the fact that drink driving is a killer don't expect people to politely help you.

Drink driving is the scourge of society and many people have lots loved ones to people just like you.

Just because you say to save our lectures doesn't mean we will. You deserve a lecture from your peers. Let the judge fling the book at you.

sopretty

Thanks Berty - you have been most helpful.......

Berty

sopretty wrote: »

Thanks Berty - you have been most helpful.......

Im going to leave you with this before I get banned for trolling.

You might need this link

PeakOutput

sopretty wrote: »

Do I receive a reason for a thread being locked?

youa rent allowed ask for legal advice in the legal discussion forum you can only post hypothetical situations

sopretty

Berty - thanks but I won't be clicking on your link - whatever it is...... I don't like viruses..........

I wasn't asking for legal advice, as the solicitor had provided me with the advice to 'forget about it for the moment and ring me again when you get issued with charges'

I was just wondering had anything like this ever happened to anyone before!

For the record, I have never once had a charge against me prior to this, been in trouble with the guards, let alone be arrested! so I'm not au-fait with the legal process...........

One for the grand-kids me thinks........... And yes, don't worry, I will accept whatever charge(s) are brought against me - apart from 'failure to cooperate..........'

cutymonalisa

Ah this drives me insane. They couldnt get a blood sample so your off trying to wiggle out of it - if you were drink driving fess up, sorry judge, out of order and take your punishment. Count yourself lucky you didnt kill someone.

TestTransmission

What do you expect to happen OP?

sopretty

I have no bloomin idea!!
I expect, everytime I leave the house that a guard is going to arrive up to me with a big brown envelope with a litany of charges against me!!!
I'd prefer to get it over and done with now rather than wait for 5 months as the solicitor suggested before they issue me with charges!
It's like being in limbo!

TestTransmission

I'd expect and hope for a lengthy ban

sopretty

gee thanks!

mickdw

I hate drink drivers & you really shouldnt be on the road full stop. However, that doesnt mean that they can just make up an offence if they cannot make the original offence stick. The OP most certainly must contest the charge of being uncooperative if indeed he was cooperative.
I think they still have a method of conviction for Drink driving even without the blood sample & you should be put off the road.

Armin_Tamzarian

Unless the law has been changed recently, it's as follows.
2 year ban for refusing to give a sample.
After one year you can apply to the courts to have the ban lifted.
Normally they will lift the ban after a year if you haven't beeen a bold boy in the meantime.

sopretty

Mick - thanks for your reply.
I TOO disagree with drink driving.
That said, there were mitigating circumstances in my case (which I won't go into). For all the pious who wish to to trawl out the usual debate of NO circumstances warrant driving after a drink, save yourselves the repetitive strain injury......
I guess my main query now that I think of it is, there were two guards present while the doctor was trying to take my blood. It was the doctor who told them to declare I was uncooperative.
Can those guards be trusted to stand up in a court of law and state the circumstances as they were i.e. that I had in fact been cooperative? I guess I always kind of figured that they'd all back each other up since they didn't disagree with him when I told him I had cooperated and they said nothing?
Or would they actually state what happened? i.e. that the doctor couldn't get blood from me despite my cooperation?
I'm querying this, not because I want to 'get off' or whatever it is the previous poster mentioned, but because the penalty for non-cooperation is very severe! And I cooperated fully. Why didn't they bloomin take a urine sample from me when I needed to pee in the first bloomin place..... :mad: or after trying to get blood from me!!!
They gave me two choices - urine or blood - I chose blood........ I'm sure that's more accurate than urine........ How they can claim I failed to cooperate I do not know!

CharlieCroker

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

Unless the law has been changed recently, it's as follows.
2 year ban for refusing to give a sample.
After one year you can apply to the courts to have the ban lifted.
Normally they will lift the ban after a year if you haven't beeen a bold boy in the meantime.

Law was changed in 2004 (iirc)

Fail/refuse to provide a sample is an automatic 4 year ban.
If a person can't provide urine, they can be requested to provide blood. Unfortunately, the law states that the opposite can't happen for whatever reason. (urine can't be requested after blood)

The OP has asked what her likely punnishment will be, think that's been answered.

Berty

CharlieCroker wrote: »

Law was changed in 2004 (iirc)

Fail/refuse to provide a sample is an automatic 4 year ban.

Good :mad:

sopretty

If a person can't provide urine, they can be requested to provide blood. Unfortunately, the law states that the opposite can't happen for whatever reason. (urine can't be requested after blood)


but why is it my fault they couldn't get blood from me????????

gerardo1982

sopretty wrote: »

but why is it my fault they couldn't get blood from me????????

Was it rag-week by any chance?

murraymarmalade

sopretty wrote: »

Thanks Berty - you have been most helpful.......

hope things work out for you. best of luck.

PeakOutput

in fairness to the op IF it went dwn as they say then they dont deserve any extra penalties for non cooperation

JHMEG

Berty wrote: »

You're never going to get much pity here and the fact that drink driving is a killer don't expect people to politely help you.

Drink driving is the scourge of society and many people have lots loved ones to people just like you.

Just because you say to save our lectures doesn't mean we will. You deserve a lecture from your peers. Let the judge fling the book at you.

Can we for once leave the high horses outside? This is a motors forum, not a courtroom. Like you said, leave it for the judge.

modm3

PeakOutput wrote: »

in fairness to the op IF it went dwn as they say then they dont deserve any extra penalties for non cooperation

I agree.

I can understand the feeling of limbo for the OP. Until the charges are brought you really don't know what you're up against. If it goes the way you suggest - about the doctor, then the Gardai can only testify what the doctor actually said and what they observed, would be hard for them to STATE that you didn't physically co-operate - they're not doctors or experts in drawing blood !! . The only thing I can think of as to why the doctor couldn't draw blood due to your non-cooperation is if you failed to squeeze and pump your fists....If you followed all his instruction, then the case could boil down to the competence of the doctor...there are many locations to draw blood from an arm, inside elbow, top of arm, back of hand... Unless he is only allowed to draw blood from one location on your arm or even body and the use of only one size of needle, then it would boil down to testimony from opposing doctors. Why blood could not be drawn and if resonable efforts were taken to do so..or not. The upshot or downshot, is that the possibility exists for getting away scot free, due process has to be followed and if it wasn't, how can you be convicted ??

Make sure your solicitor is a proper rottweiler though and don't take anything on here as nothing more than personal opinion. As for the pontificating on the thread....maybe you were drink driving, maybe you weren't, nothing's been proven yet.

I've had a lot of blood taken over the yrs....doctors have had trouble from time to time, low blood pressure, shock, technique etc... have all played a part !

MunsterCycling

Technically they have no evidence of you drink driving as the bag is only an indicator and not evidence IIRC, the issue they should be following up is the incompetence of the doctor. That said you're nuts for having driven if you had drink taken.

MC

stimpson

You called the doctor a muppet yet claim to have been cooperative? Brilliant.

Let us know when the court date is - I'd say you'll be hilarious on the stand.

sopretty

yup - not my finest hour I'll admit, although it was in response to his inability to get my blood........

stimpson

That does make a difference. Make sure to do the same to the judge when he takes your licence.

Berty

stimpson wrote: »

That does make a difference. Make sure to do the same to the judge when he takes your licence.

Judges normally side on those who have something to add in a professional capacity and not the mere mortals defending themselves.

I have witnessed judges tell people

"I will take the Gardas word on this over yours because he is employed by the state who trained him"

FunkBlaster87

Why don't you go to your local gp and ask him to take some blood. If he too finds it difficult you could get a written letter to this effect.

I'm sure the advice of a professional would have some bearing in court.

Berty

FunkBlaster87 wrote: »

Why don't you go to your local gp and ask him to take some blood. If he too finds it difficult you could get a written letter to this effect.

I'm sure the advice of a professional would have some bearing in court.

This guy?

FunkBlaster87

I was thinking more along the lines of Dr. Spaceman, but either would work.

As someone has already stated it can be difficult to draw blood sometimes and yes, some doctors are rubbish.

There is one in my local gp's office who I would always avoid. Doesn't know his ulna from his coccyx.

Berty

FunkBlaster87 wrote: »

Doesn't know his ulna from his coccyx.

Drawing blood from bones is always difficult. I would avoid that person as well.

FunkBlaster87

I don't know Berty. I think the sentace brake made it clear that I wasn't talking about drawing blood from bones.

Don't know if that would hold up in court.

MagicSean

sopretty wrote: »

Hello there,
About 1 month ago I was bagged and failed breathalyser on side of road.
I was brought to the garda station and went to the toilet.
Guards then gave me the option of either a urine or blood sample.
As I had just 'been', I said they should take a blood sample.
Doctor after approx. 5/10 minutes trying, couldn't get blood from either of my arms. He then stated that I had been uncooperative (I told him that the fact the he was a muppet of a doctor, didn't mean that I had been uncooperative) - for this wee moment of wisdom, I think I could be charged with threatening or abusive behaviour to a garda or something. I'm sorry, but what could I have done but present him with both of my arms?
In the heel of the hunt I wasn't issued with any charge, but have charges pending I believe, for which they have 6 months from the date of the incident to issue me with.
I'm just wondering has anyone ever heard of anything like this happening?
Where do I stand?
I spoke to a solicitor who seemed a little vague....
As far as I know it's 4 years off the road automatically for failure to cooperate, but I did bloomin' cooperate!
Oh btw, if you wish to go off on a rant about driving after consuming alcohol, please try to save your lectures for the unconverted or non-converted even......

sopretty wrote: »

Hi, thanks for the message. No the doctor or guards didn't subsequently request a urine sample. Which the solicitor found strange.
The solicitor seemed to be only able to speculate as to what charges they might issue me with.....
Funnily enough, I was in hospital about a week ago and the nurse who takes blood tried to get blood at one stage and said that she had found the vein but had used too big of a needle, so she then had to try with a smaller needle, so maybe that's why the doc couldn't get blood?
I just fail to see how much more I could have cooperated apart from producing my arms?

sopretty wrote: »

Mick - thanks for your reply.
I TOO disagree with drink driving.
That said, there were mitigating circumstances in my case (which I won't go into). For all the pious who wish to to trawl out the usual debate of NO circumstances warrant driving after a drink, save yourselves the repetitive strain injury......
I guess my main query now that I think of it is, there were two guards present while the doctor was trying to take my blood. It was the doctor who told them to declare I was uncooperative.
Can those guards be trusted to stand up in a court of law and state the circumstances as they were i.e. that I had in fact been cooperative? I guess I always kind of figured that they'd all back each other up since they didn't disagree with him when I told him I had cooperated and they said nothing?
Or would they actually state what happened? i.e. that the doctor couldn't get blood from me despite my cooperation?
I'm querying this, not because I want to 'get off' or whatever it is the previous poster mentioned, but because the penalty for non-cooperation is very severe! And I cooperated fully. Why didn't they bloomin take a urine sample from me when I needed to pee in the first bloomin place..... :mad: or after trying to get blood from me!!!
They gave me two choices - urine or blood - I chose blood........ I'm sure that's more accurate than urine........ How they can claim I failed to cooperate I do not know!

Ok the law is as follows. The garda can only demand a sample of your blood but can give you the option of providing urine instead. Once you have refused the option of providing urine and chosen blood they cannot offer it to you again. If you were not cooperating with the doctor (i.e. not staying still, not helping to raise a vein, insulting him) you are effectively refusing the to provide a sample. You have said that the week before you had trouble giving blood. Do you have a medical condition? Did you explain this to the doctor? If a medical condition prevents you from providing blood I think they can revert to the urine sample again. Did you tell the doctor you have trouble giving blood or just call him a muppet? As it stands you declined to provide urine and chose blood knowing that you couldn't provide it the week before.

The charge you are looking at is failure to provide a sample. You were not in a public place when in the station so public order charges won't follow. Other charges depend on the circumstances of your arrest (e.g. licence, insurance, nct). If the dpp decided not to proceed with the charge of failing to provide a sample you may be looking at a charge of 49(1) drink driving.

php-fox

The guards could not establish that Sopretty was drunk.
From where I sit, I believe it's possible to claim that he was fully sober and the guards won't have any evidence to prove otherwise?

I can't imagine official's opinion to be the only evidence to put a man of the road for a number of years.

(I'm not a lawyer, just my own thoughts!)

Berty

php-fox wrote: »

The guards could not establish that Sopretty was drunk.
From where I sit, I believe it's possible to claim that he was fully sober and the guards won't have any evidence to prove otherwise?

I can't imagine official's opinion to be the only evidence to put a man of the road for a number of years.

(I'm not a lawyer, just my own thoughts!)

The law states, as a member of GTC/Gardai already stated, is that it is "Failure to provide a sample" which is a 4 year ban.

CharlieCroker wrote: »

Law was changed in 2004 (iirc)

Fail/refuse to provide a sample is an automatic 4 year ban.
If a person can't provide urine, they can be requested to provide blood. Unfortunately, the law states that the opposite can't happen for whatever reason. (urine can't be requested after blood)

The OP has asked what her likely punnishment will be, think that's been answered.

Armin_Tamzarian

Berty wrote: »

The law states, as a member of GTC/Gardai already stated, is that it is "Failure to provide a sample" which is a 4 year ban.

But he didn't refuse
According to him he complied and the Doctor failed to successfully draw blood from him.
Unless he can somehow prevent blood from leaving his veins at will then how did he refuse to comply?

php-fox

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

But he didn't refuse
According to him he complied and the Doctor failed to successfully draw blood from him.
Unless he can somehow prevent blood from leaving his veins at will then how did he refuse to comply?

That's what I was thinking.

Can someone clarify what "refusal" means? If you refuse one option and accept another, this can't be punishable refusal? I guess you'd need to refuse all three?

MagicSean

php-fox wrote: »

The guards could not establish that Sopretty was drunk.
From where I sit, I believe it's possible to claim that he was fully sober and the guards won't have any evidence to prove otherwise?

I can't imagine official's opinion to be the only evidence to put a man of the road for a number of years.

(I'm not a lawyer, just my own thoughts!)

He failed the roadside breath test. That's why he was arrested in the first place. That can be used as evidence for a prosecution under section 49(1)

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

But he didn't refuse
According to him he complied and the Doctor failed to successfully draw blood from him.
Unless he can somehow prevent blood from leaving his veins at will then how did he refuse to comply?

According to him when the doctor had trouble getting blood he insulted him. The doctor isn't required to listen to abuse and that behaviour can constitute refusal. As I already said he could also have been moving around and refusing to clench his fist to bring up a vein. He also chose the blood option knowing that it would be difficult as he had trouble giving blood the week before but did not tell this to the doctor.

php-fox wrote: »

That's what I was thinking.

Can someone clarify what "refusal" means? If you refuse one option and accept another, this can't be punishable refusal? I guess you'd need to refuse all three?

It's "fail/refusal" not just refusal. Like I said if you decline to provide urine you are stuck with providing blood. If you fail to provide blood you are committing an offence. If there is a medical reason you have to tell the doctor then and there so that they can decide wether to revert back to urine. Instead of doing this the op insulted the doctor.

From what the op has said he was clearly trying to get away with the drink driving. He deliberately chose blood knowing from his previous experience that it would proove difficult to obtain. He went to the toilet so he would have an excuse not to provide urine. It's people like the op that were in mind when the legislation for fail/refusal was introduced.

Tragedy

k_mac wrote: »

From what the op has said he was clearly trying to get away with the drink driving. He deliberately chose blood knowing from his previous experience that it would proove difficult to obtain. He went to the toilet so he would have an excuse not to provide urine. It's people like the op that were in mind when the legislation for fail/refusal was introduced.

I hope to god you're not employed in any position of authority anywhere with your attitude and the way you jump to conclusions.

God help any people who cross you if you are.