Summons Letter

Voltex

Hi,

My brother in law received a summons today for a charge of drink driving. He sent me a picture of it and asked my thoughts on it. Ive never had a summons and dont understand what it means.

The text says he had a concentration of alcohol in his urine that exceeded 67mg/100ml, to wit 400.

Im wondering what the to wit 400 means?

Speak to a solicitor. Don't get legal advice of any kind on an internet forum, particularly when it relates to criminal charges.

runawaybishop

Voltex wrote: »

Hi,

My brother in law received a summons today for a charge of drink driving. He sent me a picture of it and asked my thoughts on it. Ive never had a summons and dont understand what it means.

The text says he had a concentration of alcohol in his urine that exceeded 67mg/100ml, to wit 400.

Im wondering what the to wit 400 means?

To wit 400= that is to say 400. I.e he had 400mg per 100 ml. Solicitor time.

punisher5112

But sure he would have got a receipt and known this was coming....

Ban time.

Voltex

punisher5112 wrote: »

But sure he would have got a receipt and known this was coming....

Ban time.

It was kind of strange what happened. I was out with my sons football team and got a call to meet him at the Garda station. His parents were frantic and didnt know what had happened so they asked me to speak with the Gardai to get a picture of what he did.

When I spoke to the arresting Guard, she said they would charge him on the day of the court hearing as he was so out of it his sample had to be sent to a lab for testing.

What's strange about that?

Voltex

runawaybishop wrote: »

To wit 400= that is to say 400. I.e he had 400mg per 100 ml. Solicitor time.

In other words he was nearly 6 times the limit?

punisher5112

Voltex wrote: »

It was kind of strange what happened. I was out with my sons football team and got a call to meet him at the Garda station. His parents were frantic and didnt know what had happened so they asked me to speak with the Gardai to get a picture of what he did.

When I spoke to the arresting Guard, she said they would charge him on the day of the court hearing as he was so out of it his sample had to be sent to a lab for testing.

Ah that makes sense, he didn't blow.

He needs a good solicitor.

Voltex

bubblypop wrote: »

What's strange about that?

I always thought when drink drivers were brought to the station they blew into a machine, given a receipt and released.

Apparently in this case they didnt use this process because of how intoxicated he was.

runawaybishop

Voltex wrote: »

In other words he was nearly 6 times the limit?

From what you posted, yes.

Lmklad

OSI wrote: »

You're given the option of a breath, urine or blood sample.

You’re given the options of breath or blood/urine. If you go blood/urine the Garda decides I think.

tuxy

Lmklad wrote: »

You’re given the options of breath or blood/urine. If you go blood/urine the Garda decides I think.

I'm not sure the arrested gets the choice at all. Many people refuse the breath sample and get charged with refusal, they don't get offered blood/urine in these cases.

Isn't blood/urine for when a person is in no condition to give a breath sample? Asthma attack, Injured, too intoxicated.
It seems as if the Garda went with a urine test due how intoxicated he was.

Open to correction as I would be interested in knowing the answer on this one.


But also, six times over the limit?? Should he even bother with a solicitor and just stand before the judge and accept the three year ban?

GM228

To clarify the position is as follows:-

The Guard decides on either;

(a) breath, or

(b) blood/urine or

(c) both option (a) and (b).

The accused has no option on weather (a), (b) or (c) are used, however, when the Guard decides for option (b) the accused then decides if it is blood or urine.

To note is there are different procedures when in hospital where a person appears to be incapable of complying, then the Guard can direct a blood sample.

Also in relation to drugs blood testing is mandatory.

hullaballoo

Might as well rip up that pesky old Bunreacht in that case. Bit of a pointless fuddy duddy thing. Just let the police decide whether you should have any rights in any given situation sure.

Peregrinus

hullaballoo wrote: »

Might as well rip up that pesky old Bunreacht in that case. Bit of a pointless fuddy duddy thing. Just let the police decide whether you should have any rights in any given situation sure.

Huh? The present situation does not involve the police deciding what your rights are. Your rights are as set out in the legislation, subject to the Constitution.

The role of the police is limited to deciding whether they want a breath sample, or a blood or urine sample, or one of each. The need for flexiblity here are arises because (as this thread shows) some drivers are incapable of providing a breath sample, while in other cases there may be medical indications against taking a blood or urine sample.

2020Vision

hullaballoo wrote: »

Might as well rip up that pesky old Bunreacht in that case. Bit of a pointless fuddy duddy thing. Just let the police decide whether you should have any rights in any given situation sure.

You'll be happy to know that Bunreacht na hEireann gives everyone the right to decide whether or not to drive a lethal weapon when they're full of booze.

nthclare

He must have been well hammered and lacking responsibility and judgement to get into a car and drive.

His best bet is to get treatment for his drink problem as soon as he can, present his effort to the judge and have a good look at himself, hopefully this will be a wake up call.

Luckily he didn't harm himself or others in his intrepid adventure.