dailymail.co.uk/news/article … t-let.html
You couldn’t make it up. Sweden is in the EU. Will this set a legal president?
limeyphil:
Asian motorist let | Daily Mail OnlineYou couldn’t make it up. Sweden is in the EU. Will this set a legal president?
No doubt Sweden has a legal system of its own but in the UK it would not set a legal precedent. Lower courts are obliged to honour findings of law made by higher courts, but not courts of equal status, therefore one successful defence in a Magistrates Court would not guarantee that the same defence would subsequently work in a different Magistrates court .
He was acquitted on the basis there was no proof he drove drunk - only he was drunk some time after getting home.
You would not get a successful charge of DD unless caught driving etc and there was no chance of consuming a drink since you drove last.
It doesn’t say how long after he was spotted that they did the breath test?
Regardless, drunk drivers tend to be habitual & now that he’s on the Police radar, hopefully it won’t be long before he’s caught.
Although it says 8 times the limit, He would have been twice the limit in the UK. It’s still a ■■■■ take.
I cannot believe that a judge would take notice of a defence claim that “he had read on the internet”.
Such a statement is not evidence.
In fact anyone reading this thread can claim the same thing, doesn’t make it true though.
I also don’t believe that an Asian processes alcohol any differently to any other human being.
Alcohol seems to have a really strange effect on some Chinese-type people…a Chinese lad I was at college with would go red and become quite distressed after just half a pint of beer…he reckoned it was not unusual among Chinese people.
I think the defence in this case is that the defendant had witnesses that he had taken drink between getting home and the police eventually arriving to arrest him…which obviously nullified the tests.
You can’t convict someone for drink driving just on a witnesses claim that the person was acting as though they were drunk. Could you convict someone for shoplifting because someone else said they were acting as though they were shoplifting…even if no one had any proof they were shoplifting?
What the judge was saying is that because Asians don’t process alcohol as fast as Europeans the amount that the man said he had drunk (supported by witnesses) at home was co-measurate with his blood alcohol reading.
It’s a complete non-story.
GasGas:
It’s a complete non-story.
It’s in the Daily Mail. Of course it’s a non story.
GasGas:
You can’t convict someone for drink driving just on a witnesses claim that the person was acting as though they were drunk. .
You can in the UK.
The police will knock on your door, Assess how much you have drank between getting out of your car and the present time, They will breathalise you, Arrest you if you’re over the drink drive limit, Then do a back calculation.
I thought that the woman having a 3 hour ■■■■■■ was the best part in that link (scroll down to bottom of link)… 
GasGas:
You can’t convict someone for drink driving just on a witnesses claim that the person was acting as though they were drunk.
Unless that witness is a police officer. (Sec 4 - driving whilst unfit through drink or drugs does not require a roadside breath test)
Completely misleading headline from The Mail there:- “Asian motorist who was eight times the drink-drive limit when breathalysed is let off after judge says alcohol affects ethnic groups differently”. That implies the wrong thing altogether and is a bit naughty. As stated above, he was let off because it could not be proven he had drunk before he got home (the old hip flask defence AIUI - apparently popular in Sweden en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Flush, there is a possible general genetic link to alcohol tolerance between races, although it seems to me that the overall implication is that those with this gene (ADH1B) may be better at metabolising alcohol and therefore be less susceptible to its effects.
Derf:
GasGas:
You can’t convict someone for drink driving just on a witnesses claim that the person was acting as though they were drunk.Unless that witness is a police officer. (Sec 4 - driving whilst unfit through drink or drugs does not require a roadside breath test)
The arrest may not require a roadside breath test - but a conviction will need more than the police officer’s testimony that “he was drunk”.
Roymondo:
Derf:
GasGas:
You can’t convict someone for drink driving just on a witnesses claim that the person was acting as though they were drunk.Unless that witness is a police officer. (Sec 4 - driving whilst unfit through drink or drugs does not require a roadside breath test)
The arrest may not require a roadside breath test - but a conviction will need more than the police officer’s testimony that “he was drunk”.
In a court, a police officer is regarded as an expert witness on a suspect being drunk. Seems odd, but police officers are automatically given this expert status on drunkenness.
ajs68:
Roymondo:
Derf:
GasGas:
You can’t convict someone for drink driving just on a witnesses claim that the person was acting as though they were drunk.Unless that witness is a police officer. (Sec 4 - driving whilst unfit through drink or drugs does not require a roadside breath test)
The arrest may not require a roadside breath test - but a conviction will need more than the police officer’s testimony that “he was drunk”.
In a court, a police officer is regarded as an expert witness on a suspect being drunk. Seems odd, but police officers are automatically given this expert status on drunkenness.
For simple “drunk & incapable” etc, yes. But not for a S4 RTA offence - which is what is under discussion here.
Roymondo:
ajs68:
Roymondo:
Derf:
GasGas:
You can’t convict someone for drink driving just on a witnesses claim that the person was acting as though they were drunk.Unless that witness is a police officer. (Sec 4 - driving whilst unfit through drink or drugs does not require a roadside breath test)
The arrest may not require a roadside breath test - but a conviction will need more than the police officer’s testimony that “he was drunk”.
In a court, a police officer is regarded as an expert witness on a suspect being drunk. Seems odd, but police officers are automatically given this expert status on drunkenness.
Correct, the police doctor will need to carry out an impairment field test with evidence from the OIC. A former job i left after many years of dealing with drink drivers and fatals. Enjoying a complete change in career on the ADR driving.
For simple “drunk & incapable” etc, yes. But not for a S4 RTA offence - which is what is under discussion here.
Me Too - 25 years on the thin blue line before I cried “enough!”.
Currently quite enjoying my career change delivering bulk medical supplies to home dialysis patients 
Roymondo:
Me Too - 25 years on the thin blue line before I cried “enough!”.Currently quite enjoying my career change delivering bulk medical supplies to home dialysis patients
Just the 18 for me on that ever so thin blue line, on the Haz Tankers as many years ago i invested in an ADR course.
Still in touch with ex colleagues and they say the job is too political/pc.
Night shift beckons.