Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Drink driving query

  • 28-05-2015 11:57pm
    #1
    EoghanIRL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,080 ✭✭✭


    I'm not very legal savvy but was listening to the radio and heard something interesting.

    Lets say you are driving under the influence of alcohol and you have an accident such as knocking over a cyclist or a pedestrian.Instead of staying and calling the authorities you continue to drive home or to a nearby pub etc.. and begin to consume alcohol there.
    A breath test will confirm you have been drinking alcohol. However they wouldn't know if you became drunk before or after the accident.
    So would this make it impossible to be charged with drunk driving and instead you would be charged with leaving a crime scene? So if you were in this scenario would it work in your favour to go straight home/to the pub and start consuming alcohol. Would being charged with leaving a crime scene be "better" than being charged with drunk driving. Or is there ways around in this in court.


Comments

  • #2
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0007/sec0020.html#sec20

    To the best of my knowledge this section while repealed in the 2010 Act the relevant bit of that act has not been commenced.


  • #3
    Pat Mustard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,554 ✭✭✭Pat Mustard


    EoghanIRL wrote: »
    A breath test will confirm you have been drinking alcohol. However they wouldn't know if you became drunk before or after the accident.
    So would this make it impossible to be charged with drunk driving and instead you would be charged with leaving a crime scene? So if you were in this scenario would it work in your favour to go straight home/to the pub and start consuming alcohol. Would being charged with leaving a crime scene be "better" than being charged with drunk driving. Or is there ways around in this in court.

    In that scenario, the motorist is likely to be charged with drink driving, leaving the scene of an accident and dangerous driving.


  • #4
    CiniO
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,069 ✭✭✭✭CiniO


    I'm not saying it's always possible, but there are ways to find out when you were drinking, simply by taking few measurements in certain time frames and comparing them (fe. if your bac level increases or decreases and at what pace)


  • #5
    EoghanIRL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,080 ✭✭✭EoghanIRL


    Pat Mustard wrote: »
    In that scenario, the motorist is likely to be charged with drink driving, leaving the scene of an accident and dangerous driving.

    This is what I don't get.
    How can they prove that you were drunk before the accident?


  • #6
    woejus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,502 ✭✭✭woejus


    I was a witness to a crash like that about 20 years ago, directly outside a pub.

    The drunk driver was a regular in the pub.

    The barman came out and offered a drink to the drunk driver to "calm his nerves". The driver refused but the barman insisted, the drunk driver had about three drinks in the space of 15 mins and was drinking when the Guards & firemen arrived. My word & one other witness against the drunk driver and barmen, charges were dropped. We gave statements to the Guards.

    I think the drunk driver did pay for the smashed up victim's car.

    So it can and did happen, at least once in Ireland.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • #8
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Yes it is as set out in the legislation but it's very restrictive. But contrary to popular opinion it can in circumstances work. http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/judge-blasts-hip-flask-defence-in-hurlers-drink-driving-case-212029.html


  • #9
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    EoghanIRL wrote: »
    This is what I don't get.
    How can they prove that you were drunk before the accident?

    Did you read the section I posted.

    But in summary the offence is having a certain concentration within 3 hours of driving if the result shows that the prima facia case. Then if the driver raises the defence he must satisfy the court of 2 important things 1 the drink was not taken after driving to hinder a prosecution and 2 the amount of drink consumed is what put the person over the limit.


  • #10
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    EoghanIRL wrote: »
    This is what I don't get.
    How can they prove that you were drunk before the accident?

    They don't have to. When someone attempts to use that particular defence, the burden is on them to prove that they consumed alcohol and that the alcohol consumed after driving was what put them over the limit. This is quite hard to do. It also opens them up to a separate offence of frustrating a prosecution.


Advertisement