OT: Drink drive cop sentenced.

"Simon Mason" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Re previous story, seems he tried to pull rank on the arresting officer in
an attempt to get off. Silly man.
http://qurl.net/1KU

There's also a nice picture of him on the front of today's local paper:
http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/index.jsp

Most excellent photo of him :-D

"Simon Mason" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Re previous story, seems he tried to pull rank on the arresting officer in
an attempt to get off. Silly man.
http://qurl.net/1KU

There's also a nice picture of him on the front of today's local paper:
http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/index.jsp

Full story out now:
A Police officer who spearheaded road safety campaigns has admitted driving
while nearly twice the drink-drive limit.

PC Andy Walker, 51, today told Bridlington Magistrates' Court anyone who
believed they could judge whether they were over the limit or not was
"living in a dream world".

And the court heard how Walker had used a delay in being breath tested to
try to persuade the arresting policeman not to proceed with the case against
a fellow officer.

Prosecutor Alex Quigley told the court the officer was stopped as he tried
to park his Jaguar close to his home in Lairgate, Beverley, in the early
hours of last Sunday.

She said: "A police officer noticed a woman getting out of the car and
staggering around and the driver struggling to park.

"The officer went over to speak to the driver and could smell 'intoxicants'
on his breath."

The officer on duty asked Walker to take a roadside breath test, but after
the defendant told him his last drink was only eight minutes earlier they
had to wait before carrying out the procedure.

The prosecutor said: "Twelve minutes later PC Walker took the test and
failed."

The court heard Walker told the officer who stopped him "don't worry, I'm in
the job, can't you just let me go, I've only had one pint" and "You don't
need to be doing this, I've been in the job 28 years".

However, the court heard from Walker he had drunk two pints and one glass of
wine and he gave a breath test reading of 61mg in breath, the legal limit
being 35mg.

He gave that reading, along with another reading at Bridlington Police
Station, where he fully admitted the offence.

Walker, who represented himself at this morning's hearing, told the court he
had brought shame on himself and the Humberside force.

He said he was now facing disciplinary procedure and the job he was
dedicated to was now in jeopardy.

He told the court he wanted to remain in public service.

He said he had gone to a family party at the Ramada Hull Hotel in Willerby
and that for personal reasons it had been a difficult evening. He said that
he had drunk slowly and over a long period of time and that he had intended
to get a taxi home, however he said he made several calls for a cab and that
none were available.

He said he waited for 30 minutes outside the hotel in the hope a taxi would
arrive, but it didn't.

He said: "I then made a judgement about my fitness to drive and I decided I
was under the limit. This was a huge mistake.

"I drove home without incident to Beverley, I had no concern at the time of
giving the breath-test. I was flabbergasted when I failed it."

He said he still couldn't believe it had happened but he accepted the
situation. He offered an apology to the officer he had tried to persuade not
to proceed with the matter and said he had acted in a "professional manner".

Chairman of the Bench Robin Sumley banned the officer from driving for 16
months, ordered him to pay a fine of £300 and a victim surcharge of £15 as
well as court costs of £43.

Walker had urged the court that he be allowed to take part in a driver
rehabilitation course and Mr Sumley agreed he could.

The course will cost Walker £250 but will mean his ban is lessened by four
months if he completes it on time.

He must hand his driving licence in at Beverley Magistrates' Court within
seven days.

Walker has headed numerous campaigns to educate people on the dangers of
drink-driving, including one that labelled them "idiots".

Carol Wittingham, of the Campaign Against Drinking and Driving, said Walker
had made a laughing stock of the casualty re-education team.

She said: "I am disappointed to hear this officer chose to drink and drive.
He should be demoted from the job he has been doing."

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net

Quoted message said:

He said he waited for *30 minutes* outside the hotel in the hope a taxi
would arrive, but it didn't.

Quoted message said:

The officer on duty asked Walker to take a roadside breath test, but after
the defendant told him his last drink was only *eight minutes* earlier
they had to wait before carrying out the procedure.

Perjury surely?

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net

Simon Mason said:

However, the court heard from Walker he had drunk two pints and one glass of
wine and he gave a breath test reading of 61mg in breath, the legal limit
being 35mg.

Is being nearly twice the limit consistent with such a small amount of
alcohol?

Simon Mason said:

Quoted message said:

He said he waited for *30 minutes* outside the hotel in the hope a taxi
would arrive, but it didn't.

Quoted message said:

The officer on duty asked Walker to take a roadside breath test, but after
the defendant told him his last drink was only *eight minutes* earlier
they had to wait before carrying out the procedure.

Perjury surely?

No, I think; lying to the police may be an offense, but if so I doubt it is
called "perjury".

And there is no doubt it was a lie - how can he have had a drink only 8
minutes before, when he also claims to have waited 30 minutes outside for a
taxi?

_ said:

Simon Mason said:

Quoted message said:

He said he waited for *30 minutes* outside the hotel in the hope a taxi
would arrive, but it didn't.
The officer on duty asked Walker to take a roadside breath test, but after
the defendant told him his last drink was only *eight minutes* earlier
they had to wait before carrying out the procedure.

Perjury surely?

No, I think; lying to the police may be an offense, but if so I doubt it is
called "perjury".

And there is no doubt it was a lie - how can he have had a drink only 8
minutes before, when he also claims to have waited 30 minutes outside for a
taxi?

There /is/ doubt about whether that was a lie or not. There are several
scenarios in which he could have had a drink eight minutes earlier...

If his drive was less than 8 minutes:
1. He was drinking outside whilst waiting for a taxi.
2. He lied about waiting for a taxi and left straight after his last drink.

If his drive was greater than 8 minutes:
3. He drank whilst driving his car.

Let's hope you are never asked to do jury service.

--
Matt B

In article <[email hidden]>, Simon
Mason
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

He said he waited for *30 minutes* outside the hotel in the hope a taxi
would arrive, but it didn't.

Quoted message said:

The officer on duty asked Walker to take a roadside breath test, but after
the defendant told him his last drink was only *eight minutes* earlier
they had to wait before carrying out the procedure.

Perjury surely?

Perjury only applies to statements made under oath in court -
'deception' might be a more relevant offence, but presumably as it
already made him look more of a [censored] and harmed his defence this is
reflected in his sentence and that's sufficient.

_ wrote on 08/06/2007 14:41 +0100:

Quoted message said:

And there is no doubt it was a lie - how can he have had a drink only 8
minutes before, when he also claims to have waited 30 minutes outside for a
taxi?

Yes otherwise every person who pleaded not guilty and was found guilty
would also be guilty of perjury.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

Budstaff said:

"Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

_ said:

On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 14:03:54 +0100, Simon Mason wrote:

>> He said he waited for *30 minutes* outside the hotel in the hope a taxi
>> would arrive, but it didn't.
>> The officer on duty asked Walker to take a roadside breath test, but
>> after the defendant told him his last drink was only *eight minutes*
>> earlier they had to wait before carrying out the procedure.
> Perjury surely?
No, I think; lying to the police may be an offense, but if so I doubt it
is
called "perjury".

And there is no doubt it was a lie - how can he have had a drink only 8
minutes before, when he also claims to have waited 30 minutes outside for
a
taxi?

There /is/ doubt about whether that was a lie or not. There are several
scenarios in which he could have had a drink eight minutes earlier...

If his drive was less than 8 minutes:
1. He was drinking outside whilst waiting for a taxi.
2. He lied about waiting for a taxi and left straight after his last
drink.

If his drive was greater than 8 minutes:
3. He drank whilst driving his car.

Let's hope you are never asked to do jury service.

I rather think it is you who would be a liability on a jury. The burden of
proof is beyond reasonable doubt.

Exactly.

Quoted message said:

None of the vaguely plausible fictions you
have constructed would give rise to a reasonable doubt.

There was no doubt that had drank in the previous 8 minutes - was there?
The Police took his word for it, and delayed the breath-test as required.

Quoted message said:

None of them was put
up by the copper in his defence.

It was nothing to do with defence. It was to do with the breath-test
process.

Quoted message said:

As he did not seek to reconcile his
contradictory statements, one of them was a lie.

He wasn't questioned over it. He failed the breath-test, after allowing
the specified time after his last drink, and, apparently admitted the
offence.

What's the big deal?

--
Matt B

"Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

_ said:

Simon Mason said:

> He said he waited for *30 minutes* outside the hotel in the hope a taxi
> would arrive, but it didn't.
> The officer on duty asked Walker to take a roadside breath test, but
> after the defendant told him his last drink was only *eight minutes*
> earlier they had to wait before carrying out the procedure.
Perjury surely?

No, I think; lying to the police may be an offense, but if so I doubt it
is
called "perjury".

And there is no doubt it was a lie - how can he have had a drink only 8
minutes before, when he also claims to have waited 30 minutes outside for
a
taxi?

There /is/ doubt about whether that was a lie or not. There are several
scenarios in which he could have had a drink eight minutes earlier...

If his drive was less than 8 minutes:
1. He was drinking outside whilst waiting for a taxi.
2. He lied about waiting for a taxi and left straight after his last
drink.

If his drive was greater than 8 minutes:
3. He drank whilst driving his car.

Let's hope you are never asked to do jury service.

I rather think it is you who would be a liability on a jury. The burden of
proof is beyond reasonable doubt. None of the vaguely plausible fictions you
have constructed would give rise to a reasonable doubt. None of them was put
up by the copper in his defence. As he did not seek to reconcile his
contradictory statements, one of them was a lie.

"Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

_ said:

Simon Mason said:

> He said he waited for *30 minutes* outside the hotel in the hope a taxi
> would arrive, but it didn't.
> The officer on duty asked Walker to take a roadside breath test, but
> after the defendant told him his last drink was only *eight minutes*
> earlier they had to wait before carrying out the procedure.
Perjury surely?

No, I think; lying to the police may be an offense, but if so I doubt it
is
called "perjury".

And there is no doubt it was a lie - how can he have had a drink only 8
minutes before, when he also claims to have waited 30 minutes outside for
a
taxi?

There /is/ doubt about whether that was a lie or not. There are several
scenarios in which he could have had a drink eight minutes earlier...

If his drive was less than 8 minutes:
1. He was drinking outside whilst waiting for a taxi.
2. He lied about waiting for a taxi and left straight after his last
drink.

If his drive was greater than 8 minutes:
3. He drank whilst driving his car.

Let's hope you are never asked to do jury service.

And never mind the other lie he told about how much he had drunk.

Al C-F said:

Simon Mason said:

However, the court heard from Walker he had drunk two pints and one glass of
wine and he gave a breath test reading of 61mg in breath, the legal limit
being 35mg.

Is being nearly twice the limit consistent with such a small amount of
alcohol?

A pint of beer is roughly 2.5 units of alcohol.

A standard glass of wine is roughly the same.

According to <http://www.drinkingandyou.com/site/uk/drive.htm> "each
unit will increase your BAC by 20mg (up to 30mg for women). The UK BAC
limit is 80mg per 100ml blood, allowing you to drink a pint to a pint
and a half of beer, or one glass of wine at 13% without exceeding the
drink-drive limit."

By my reckoning, had he drunk all three drinks in one and then started
driving, his blood alcohol levels would have been somewhere in the
region of 150mg per 100ml.

After one hour, it would have been around 130mg. Therefore, to answer
your question, yes, I think it is consistent. It takes the body the best
part of an hour to break down each unit of alcohol. That's one reason
why many people are caught for drink driving over Christmas: they simply
haven't worked out that, if they drink 7 pints at a do and then drive
into work seven hours later with a hangover, 7 units of alcohol may well
still be in their system.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

Budstaff said:

"Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

_ said:

On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 14:03:54 +0100, Simon Mason wrote:

>> He said he waited for *30 minutes* outside the hotel in the hope a taxi
>> would arrive, but it didn't.
>> The officer on duty asked Walker to take a roadside breath test, but
>> after the defendant told him his last drink was only *eight minutes*
>> earlier they had to wait before carrying out the procedure.
> Perjury surely?
No, I think; lying to the police may be an offense, but if so I doubt it
is
called "perjury".

And there is no doubt it was a lie - how can he have had a drink only 8
minutes before, when he also claims to have waited 30 minutes outside for
a
taxi?

There /is/ doubt about whether that was a lie or not. There are several
scenarios in which he could have had a drink eight minutes earlier...

If his drive was less than 8 minutes:
1. He was drinking outside whilst waiting for a taxi.
2. He lied about waiting for a taxi and left straight after his last
drink.

If his drive was greater than 8 minutes:
3. He drank whilst driving his car.

Let's hope you are never asked to do jury service.

And never mind the other lie he told about how much he had drunk.

Let's examine the evidence on that then...

We didn't hear the result of the blood test, but the breath test was
reported to have shown 61 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millitres of
breath, the limit is 35. If the relationship is pro-rata with the blood
limit of 80 milligrammes of alcohol per 100ml of blood, then we can
assume about 139mg/100ml.

The Drinking&You website[1] (thanks Ekul Namsob) gives typical figures
as follows:

2 pints of beer = 4.4 to 5.6 units
1 glass of wine = 2.1 to 2.45 units
That's a total of 6.5 to 8.05 units.

A male's blood-alcohol content will increase by 20mg/unit.
That's a total of 130 to 180 mg/ml then for 6.5 to 8 units.
About 1 unit (20mg/ml) per hour is broken down.

That appears to be quite consistent with his claims.

[1] <http://www.drinkingandyou.com/site/uk/drive.htm>

--
Matt B

in message <[email hidden]>, Rob Morley

(') said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Simon
Mason
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

He said he waited for *30 minutes* outside the hotel in the hope a
taxi would arrive, but it didn't.

Quoted message said:

The officer on duty asked Walker to take a roadside breath test, but
after the defendant told him his last drink was only *eight minutes*
earlier they had to wait before carrying out the procedure.

Perjury surely?

Perjury only applies to statements made under oath in court -
'deception' might be a more relevant offence, but presumably as it
already made him look more of a [censored] and harmed his defence this is
reflected in his sentence and that's sufficient.

"attempting to pervert the course of justice..."

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

...but have you *seen* the size of the world wide spider?

Budstaff said:

"Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Budstaff said:

"Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> _ wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 14:03:54 +0100, Simon Mason wrote:
>>
>>>> He said he waited for *30 minutes* outside the hotel in the hope a
>>>> taxi would arrive, but it didn't.
>>>> The officer on duty asked Walker to take a roadside breath test, but
>>>> after the defendant told him his last drink was only *eight minutes*
>>>> earlier they had to wait before carrying out the procedure.
>>> Perjury surely?
>> No, I think; lying to the police may be an offense, but if so I doubt
>> it is
>> called "perjury".
>>
>> And there is no doubt it was a lie - how can he have had a drink only 8
>> minutes before, when he also claims to have waited 30 minutes outside
>> for a
>> taxi?
> There /is/ doubt about whether that was a lie or not. There are several
> scenarios in which he could have had a drink eight minutes earlier...
>
> If his drive was less than 8 minutes:
> 1. He was drinking outside whilst waiting for a taxi.
> 2. He lied about waiting for a taxi and left straight after his last
> drink.
>
> If his drive was greater than 8 minutes:
> 3. He drank whilst driving his car.
>
> Let's hope you are never asked to do jury service.
>
I rather think it is you who would be a liability on a jury. The burden
of proof is beyond reasonable doubt.

Exactly.

Quoted message said:

None of the vaguely plausible fictions you have constructed would give
rise to a reasonable doubt.

There was no doubt that had drank in the previous 8 minutes - was there?
The Police took his word for it, and delayed the breath-test as required.

Quoted message said:

None of them was put up by the copper in his defence.

It was nothing to do with defence. It was to do with the breath-test
process.

Quoted message said:

As he did not seek to reconcile his contradictory statements, one of them
was a lie.

He wasn't questioned over it. He failed the breath-test, after allowing
the specified time after his last drink, and, apparently admitted the
offence.

What's the big deal?

You're right, what's the big deal? I treated your post seriously. I was a
fool to do so.

It was serious. Unfounded accusations were made and I pointed that out.
You jumped in to try to attack my point, I defended it. You now
concede that what I wrote was fair comment.

--
Matt B

"Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Budstaff said:

"Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

_ wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 14:03:54 +0100, Simon Mason wrote:
>
>>> He said he waited for *30 minutes* outside the hotel in the hope a
>>> taxi would arrive, but it didn't.
>>> The officer on duty asked Walker to take a roadside breath test, but
>>> after the defendant told him his last drink was only *eight minutes*
>>> earlier they had to wait before carrying out the procedure.
>> Perjury surely?
> No, I think; lying to the police may be an offense, but if so I doubt
> it is
> called "perjury".
>
> And there is no doubt it was a lie - how can he have had a drink only 8
> minutes before, when he also claims to have waited 30 minutes outside
> for a
> taxi?
There /is/ doubt about whether that was a lie or not. There are several
scenarios in which he could have had a drink eight minutes earlier...

If his drive was less than 8 minutes:
1. He was drinking outside whilst waiting for a taxi.
2. He lied about waiting for a taxi and left straight after his last
drink.

If his drive was greater than 8 minutes:
3. He drank whilst driving his car.

Let's hope you are never asked to do jury service.

I rather think it is you who would be a liability on a jury. The burden
of proof is beyond reasonable doubt.

Exactly.

Quoted message said:

None of the vaguely plausible fictions you have constructed would give
rise to a reasonable doubt.

There was no doubt that had drank in the previous 8 minutes - was there?
The Police took his word for it, and delayed the breath-test as required.

Quoted message said:

None of them was put up by the copper in his defence.

It was nothing to do with defence. It was to do with the breath-test
process.

Quoted message said:

As he did not seek to reconcile his contradictory statements, one of them
was a lie.

He wasn't questioned over it. He failed the breath-test, after allowing
the specified time after his last drink, and, apparently admitted the
offence.

What's the big deal?

You're right, what's the big deal? I treated your post seriously. I was a
fool to do so.

"Ekul Namsob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Al C-F said:

Simon Mason said:

However, the court heard from Walker he had drunk two pints and one
glass of
wine and he gave a breath test reading of 61mg in breath, the legal
limit
being 35mg.

Is being nearly twice the limit consistent with such a small amount of
alcohol?

A pint of beer is roughly 2.5 units of alcohol.

A standard glass of wine is roughly the same.

According to <http://www.drinkingandyou.com/site/uk/drive.htm> "each
unit will increase your BAC by 20mg (up to 30mg for women). The UK BAC
limit is 80mg per 100ml blood, allowing you to drink a pint to a pint
and a half of beer, or one glass of wine at 13% without exceeding the
drink-drive limit."

By my reckoning, had he drunk all three drinks in one and then started
driving, his blood alcohol levels would have been somewhere in the
region of 150mg per 100ml.

After one hour, it would have been around 130mg. Therefore, to answer
your question, yes, I think it is consistent. It takes the body the best
part of an hour to break down each unit of alcohol. That's one reason
why many people are caught for drink driving over Christmas: they simply
haven't worked out that, if they drink 7 pints at a do and then drive
into work seven hours later with a hangover, 7 units of alcohol may well
still be in their system.

It's interesting, though, that this man, as an expert in this field, came up
with a story that had himself drinking 7.5 units, slowly and throughout the
evening, and was then 'flabbergasted' to fail the test. If his body was
processing the alcohol at anything near the normal rate, with such
consumption he would most likely not have failed the test. He was tested in
the early hours, which should have been at least 5 hours after his first
drink by his own account, which should have given him time to clear
100mg/100ml out of his system. So he either drank a lot more than he said,
drank it a lot later than he said, or has a liver problem.

"Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Budstaff said:

"Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

_ wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 14:03:54 +0100, Simon Mason wrote:
>
>>> He said he waited for *30 minutes* outside the hotel in the hope a
>>> taxi would arrive, but it didn't.
>>> The officer on duty asked Walker to take a roadside breath test, but
>>> after the defendant told him his last drink was only *eight minutes*
>>> earlier they had to wait before carrying out the procedure.
>> Perjury surely?
> No, I think; lying to the police may be an offense, but if so I doubt
> it is
> called "perjury".
>
> And there is no doubt it was a lie - how can he have had a drink only 8
> minutes before, when he also claims to have waited 30 minutes outside
> for a
> taxi?
There /is/ doubt about whether that was a lie or not. There are several
scenarios in which he could have had a drink eight minutes earlier...

If his drive was less than 8 minutes:
1. He was drinking outside whilst waiting for a taxi.
2. He lied about waiting for a taxi and left straight after his last
drink.

If his drive was greater than 8 minutes:
3. He drank whilst driving his car.

Let's hope you are never asked to do jury service.

And never mind the other lie he told about how much he had drunk.

Let's examine the evidence on that then...

We didn't hear the result of the blood test, but the breath test was
reported to have shown 61 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millitres of
breath, the limit is 35. If the relationship is pro-rata with the blood
limit of 80 milligrammes of alcohol per 100ml of blood, then we can assume
about 139mg/100ml.

The Drinking&You website[1] (thanks Ekul Namsob) gives typical figures as
follows:

2 pints of beer = 4.4 to 5.6 units
1 glass of wine = 2.1 to 2.45 units
That's a total of 6.5 to 8.05 units.

A male's blood-alcohol content will increase by 20mg/unit.
That's a total of 130 to 180 mg/ml then for 6.5 to 8 units.
About 1 unit (20mg/ml) per hour is broken down.

That appears to be quite consistent with his claims.

Its not for the reasons I give in reply to Luke's post. His blood alcohol at
the time of testing is consistent with him having drunk that amount in one
swallow 2.5 to 3 hours before being tested. He claims to have drunk it
slowly over a long period the previous evening.

Simon Mason wrote on 08/06/2007 12:24 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Re previous story, seems he tried to pull rank on the arresting officer in
an attempt to get off. Silly man.
http://qurl.net/1KU

Sounds like the Sniper and junior constable story only with a different
ending ;-)

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell