Christmas Drink Drive Campaign

Flash In The Pan said:
The guy who ran the garage next door to mine had been caught drink driving five times, he had had at least one lifetime ban, neither that nor a prison sentence proved to be any deterrent.
Click to expand...

If the second time he had been jailed for 5 years it may have been different, plus the third time he is then jailed for 10. Wont stop everyone but would most. The punishment needs to be severe. Hypothetically, if say the death penalty was introduced for DD, it would stop 99.9% of people. The problem is that a fine and a ban is not a strong deterrent for most people.
 
A bloke at work has been banned twice for DD, after the second time, he applied to the courts to get his license back a year early on account of his girlfriend being pregnant and they gave it back to him. This surely shouldn't happen especially being a repeat offender. He doesn't drink as much now but he'll still get behind the wheel when OTT.
 
itsdavedotnet said:
The offence isn't 'drunk driving', it's:
Click to expand...
Dave you did not read the context about the word drunk, we were referring to a publican/barperson not being allowed to serve a drunk person alcohol.

I know it is not drunk driving. Concentrate on the thread....or have you been drinking?
 
Lynton, I wish my wife was tea-total, we would save a fortune.
 
I have a Strathclyde Police Breathalyser Kit

just joking if yer the Polis...:lol:

given to me by a druggie who had no money for the taxi fare....DON'T ASK.......:D

anyways
a test... one 600ml bottle 'strong' cider = caution
another, 1 hour later = FAIL

conclusion ....Don't drive and drive at all that day...simples

and be careful the following morning

many of our 'taxi to work for 6months customers' were breathalyzed on Monday morning

BE CAREFUL AND HAVE A SAFE CHRISTMAS
 
Lynton

Someone at the top of the page put both the offences involving drinking and driving, which covers your scenario

In theory, you can have a blood alcohol concentration below the drink drive limit, but still be unfit though drink.

There are 2 offences, which reading through the 3 pages people are confused over.

The first put simply is driving while having a blood alcohol concentration above a prescribed limit. For most of us, it's far from being drunk, and is roughly 2 units of alcohol. One unit is half a pint of normal strength beer, 2, is obviously, a pint. 1 & 1/2 pints, puts you way over.

BUT

The average human dumps alcohol out of their system at the rate of 1 unit an hour. So have a pint, then 3 hours later, if you are average, you have a zero reading on a breath test.

The problem is that people have no idea what they can drink, and what effect that has. Nor do they know the starting points.

Obviously, unless you know you are average, then you can only guess at when you'll be clear. It doesn't help that most people have no idea what a unit of alcohol is either.


Driving whole unfit is obviously you are not fit to drive, in reality, when I worse a blue suit, if someone fell out the car and couldn't stand, speak or co ordinate, then it was Driving while unfit, otherwise we used a breath test and went with over the prescribed limit.

As for the Statistics. It's impossible to tell from them if the person who'd been drinking was the cause of an accident, or if it would have happened anyway. It does seem unjust that, in the example used early on in this thread, someone sat at traffic lights mind thier own, who's backended could still get prosecuted if he was either above the prescribed limit, or unfit, but hey thats life.
 
Last edited:
nilagin said:
I think it ought to be a 2yr ban followed by retest and a permanent indication on their license. Any repeat offenders should then receive a lifetime ban...
Click to expand...

Not sure of current laws but when i was in Sweden 30odd years ago

our minibus driver would not even come into the bar

FIRST DD conviction
lose your licence FOR EVER
go to PRISON for 30 days

No appeal ......very low DD incidence in crashes.....QED
 
Yardbent said:
Not sure of current laws but when i was in Sweden 30odd years ago

our minibus driver would not even come into the bar

FIRST DD conviction
lose your licence FOR EVER
go to PRISON for 30 days

No appeal ......very low DD incidence in crashes.....QED
Click to expand...
I couldn't afford to drink in Sweden anyway.
 
When we used to go out for a drink in out teens ,(3 of us) there used to be a machine in our fav drinking hole.
You put a coin in it and at some point the coin dropped and you had to press a button as quick as you could to stop it, there was a measuring strip to show how good you where.
I always came last :suspect: (slow reactions) but after a few bevies it was bl@@dy impossible to stop that coin.
Remember that to this day so will not have more than a shandy when driving.
Usually just soft drinks.
 
rhody said:
If you knew without a shadow of a doubt someone had been drinking in a pub, club, party or restaurant (enough to be over the limit) and was proposing to get behind the wheel and drive home - would you phone the police and tell them?
Click to expand...

Without question - YES!

I reported my son in the summer when he got into his car after a pretty heavy drinking session. I told him I would if he drove off but he went anyway ... and I called the police and gave them his car registration number. To his credit he came back about 5 minutes later having realised a) he was too drunk to be driving and b) I would actually report him if I said I would.

I called the police again to tell them he'd returned home and they sent a traffic officer around about an hour later by which time he was in bed asleep. They insisted on him getting up but after talking to him for about 10 minutes decided not to breathalise him.

For sure if they'd breathalised him he would have failed the test. Personally I'm grateful that the officer concerned used his discretion based on his conversation and didn't pursue the issue.

He was very lucky ... but learned his lesson and won't be doing it again. On the plus side, he doesn't drink anything like as much as he used to :)
 
Bristolian said:
Without question - YES!

I reported my son in the summer when he got into his car after a pretty heavy drinking session. I told him I would if he drove off but he went anyway ... and I called the police and gave them his car registration number. To his credit he came back about 5 minutes later having realised a) he was too drunk to be driving and b) I would actually report him if I said I would.

I called the police again to tell them he'd returned home and they sent a traffic officer around about an hour later by which time he was in bed asleep. They insisted on him getting up but after talking to him for about 10 minutes decided not to breathalise him.

For sure if they'd breathalised him he would have failed the test. Personally I'm grateful that the officer concerned used his discretion based on his conversation and didn't pursue the issue.

He was very lucky ... but learned his lesson and won't be doing it again. On the plus side, he doesn't drink anything like as much as he used to :)
Click to expand...

I thoroughly support your decision of what you decided to do. Even more so as it was a family member. I personally won't get behind the wheel if a car after having half a beer for a good few hours atleast. As I see it it's not worth the risk. I'm by far no light weight drinker. But there's been times I've felt tipsy after one beer due to my stomach condition.
 
Bristolian said:
Without question - YES!

I reported my son in the summer when he got into his car after a pretty heavy drinking session. I told him I would if he drove off but he went anyway ... and I called the police and gave them his car registration number. To his credit he came back about 5 minutes later having realised a) he was too drunk to be driving and b) I would actually report him if I said I would.

I called the police again to tell them he'd returned home and they sent a traffic officer around about an hour later by which time he was in bed asleep. They insisted on him getting up but after talking to him for about 10 minutes decided not to breathalise him.

For sure if they'd breathalised him he would have failed the test. Personally I'm grateful that the officer concerned used his discretion based on his conversation and didn't pursue the issue.

He was very lucky ... but learned his lesson and won't be doing it again. On the plus side, he doesn't drink anything like as much as he used to :)
Click to expand...
That would have been awkward as I presume they need you to give evidence that your son had driven

I've posted this before but the sentences are way too lenient

Guy I know caused a crash while drunk, luckily nobody injured, 12 months ban

Gets his licence back after 9 months because he went on a drink awareness course

A few months later gets stopped again, 3x the limit

Goes to court ******** himself, faces prison and up to £10,000 fine

Comes out bouncing, 3 year ban which was mandatory and a £500 fine, not even a weeks wages

He has now learned his lesson because he's stopped driving completely and hasn't reapplied for a licence

What's the point of the threat of prison and massive fines if nobody gets them
 
tiler65 said:
See above...lol

Isn't a 'significant minority' an oxymoron?
Click to expand...

No. 1% is an insignificant minority, 49% is a significant minority.


At work at the moment I have a pretty wittless "youf" trainee. Generally he terrifies me especially as what we work on is fairly dangerous. The other day though he distinguished himself.. The talk had drifted round to drink driving and he said it was unacceptable. I asked him why, expecting the usual answer that you may lose your licence and he responded " because you might hurt an innocent bystander". 100 bonus points and considerable respect Young Sir.

If I had my way, there would be a minimal alcohol limit (zero is not practical for medical reasons).

Anyone driving over that limit would be permanently banned.

A second offence would result in an automatic prison sentence.

A little Draconian? Until you can convince me that it is morally acceptable to take risks with others' lives I think not.
 
I think the laws relating to drinking and driving are probably OK as they stand as having lower DD limits will do nothing to stop the hardcore of drivers who will drink drive regularly in the knowledge that being caught is unlikely. A zero DD limit will almost certainly put most country pubs out of business.

I would rather see more done to target the large number of drivers who regularly drive in a very dangerous manner WHILE STONE COLD SOBER.
 
A work colleague told me of an instance from when he was serving his apprenticeship at another firm. They had organised a works Christmas do with just about everyone going by coach, all except for one bloke nearing retirement age who refused to go by coach and preferred to drive himself. My mate asked him why he wanted to drive as if he went by coach along with everyone else, he'd be able to enjoy himself more and have a good drink. The bloke became quite indignant and told him he would be having a good drink and still driving and it was only young inexperienced motorists of my mates age who couldn't handle their drink, had accidents or got caught as a result and spoilt it for everyone else by highlighting a problem which didn't exist.
If people can think like that when they are sober, there is no hope once they have had a few.
 
I don't drink, so I don't have to make any personal decisions about driving, but this wasn't always the case. I used to live in a country where no-one, including the police and the courts, took it very seriously and a lot of us drove when we were well over the limit at times. Most of the people I knew didn't regard a couple of beers, sharing a bottle of wine in a restaurant, and an Irish coffee as drinking anyway. That was just going out for dinner. There was no real sense that it was irresponsible or unacceptable either, and I also knew some people who drove home, and boasted that they hadn't a clue how they got there. On the odd occasions when anyone - usually recent immigrants - questioned this sort of behaviour, we could find all sorts of "justifications". There was no public transport at all, very few taxis, not much traffic and we "were always careful". Perhaps there was a time like this in the UK? I don't know.

Anyway, it was a long time ago and in another place. I'm not proud of it, but I don't get stressed about it either. I was just the way things were. I wouldn't dream of drinking and driving now, even if I still wanted to have a few drinks.
 
Last edited:
MartynK said:
I don't drink, so I don't have to make any personal decisions about driving, but this wasn't always the case. I used to live in a country where no-one, including the police and the courts, took it very seriously and a lot of us drove when we were well over the limit at times. Most of the people I knew didn't regard a couple of beers, sharing a bottle of wine in a restaurant, and an Irish coffee as drinking anyway. That was just going out for dinner. There was no real sense that it was irresponsible or unacceptable either, and I also knew some people who drove home, and boasted that they hadn't a clue how they got there. On the odd occasions when anyone - usually recent immigrants - questioned this sort of behaviour, we could find all sorts of "justifications". There was no public transport at all, very few taxis, not much traffic and we "were always careful". Perhaps there was a time like this in the UK? I don't know.

Anyway, it was a long time ago and in another place. I'm not proud of it, but I don't get stressed about it either. I was just the way things were. I wouldn't dream of drinking and driving now, even if I still wanted to have a few drinks.
Click to expand...

When I was a kid (and probably too young to realise what was happening) one of my great uncles would drive from Grays to Shoebury (probably 30 miles or so) have a decent drink and drive home........ he would always swallow half a pack of polo mints "just in case I get breathalised" :cuckoo:

One of my Granddads always used to laugh about the time he drove the whole family home from a pub miles away completely drunk and on one occasion drove straight across a rounabout he forgot was there.

From my experience, it's older people (I'm 34) that seem to think it's OK to drive under the influence as "they'll be OK".

Worryingly, I keep hearing of newly qualified drivers who are also willing to risk it.

I can't help thinking that because of the relative success of DD campaigns in the 80s/90s it's advertised a little less now so new drivers aren't getting the same bombardment of horrific images etc that I and many others got during my childhood/teenage years?
 
A few years ago, I was unlucky enough to have an accident 2 weeks before christmas. No other vehicles involved but mine ended up rolling and blocking the road on its side (nobody injured. Police turned up and did a cursory investigation to see if any blame could be pinned on anyone. I was most surprised (given the time of year) that I wasn't asked to blow into their machine - the only investigation into that area was asking me when I last had a drink - the answer being about 2 weeks earlier. My guess is that a negative result may have skewed their statistics away from the increase. The only casualty was a tomato which got crushed underneath a christmas present I had just bought. The vehicle (a LandRover 90) was a write-off (which did save me the hassle of selling it but I do miss the thing.)
 
Since the Christmas holidays are fast approaching, and you may be attending festivities where alcohol might be served,I would like to share an experience with you about drinking and driving.

As you well know, some of us have been known to have had brushes with the authorities on our way home from the odd social session over the years. A couple of nights ago, I was out for a few drinks with some friends and had a few too many beers and some rather nice bourbon. Knowing full well I may have been slightly over the limit, I did something I've never done before - I took a bus home. I arrived back safely and without incident,which was a real surprise since I had never driven a bus before and am not sure where I got this one.
 
chazza said:
Since the Christmas holidays are fast approaching, and you may be attending festivities where alcohol might be served,I would like to share an experience with you about drinking and driving.

As you well know, some of us have been known to have had brushes with the authorities on our way home from the odd social session over the years. A couple of nights ago, I was out for a few drinks with some friends and had a few too many beers and some rather nice bourbon. Knowing full well I may have been slightly over the limit, I did something I've never done before - I took a bus home. I arrived back safely and without incident,which was a real surprise since I had never driven a bus before and am not sure where I got this one.
Click to expand...

An old one but still makes me chuckle...
 
boliston said:
I think the laws relating to drinking and driving are probably OK as they stand as having lower DD limits will do nothing to stop the hardcore of drivers who will drink drive regularly in the knowledge that being caught is unlikely.
Click to expand...

Sadly I have to agree with this, I fully support the DD campain as I can see no excuse for DD at all.

It was said the numbers of DD has gone up this year, well to be honest I have not seen one single TV advert about DD this year, maybe people are letting their guard down again.
 
I used to work in a hotel as a bars manager and saw too many drunken idiots to drink one and drive. People seem to think they are invincible when they drink and more coherent, good looking and can take on the world after a few beers (or glasses of fav tipple)

I got stopped on occasion and usually smelt of beer because of the nature of the job and the odd beer spillage that got onto my clothes etc. Was happy to take the test but then I had no reason to worry.

It always seems to me that it's others that get hurt by drunk drivers either passengers or other road users and they walk away unscathed. I know this is prob a generalisation but it's how it seems to me !!


I fully support the campaign and hope that those that DD get caught before someone gets hurt
 
In Northern Ireland almost 250 people have been done for drink driving since the start of the annual campaign on 25th November. Youngest was 16 and oldest was 72. 5 of those people were more than 4 times the limit. Madness.
 
I agree with Chris above,it is usually the innocent that suffer the consequences, not DD,but a good few years ago,I drove waggons on and off container vessels.
We had a job where when finished you could go home,dangerous indeed.

I hooked up to a container and shouted if it was all clear to drive away ( some of the other guys where taking the chains off the containers ,that hold them in place whilst at sea) I got the thumbs up from one of the lads and put it into gear when, (and I Thank God for this) someone shouted WOAH!.
I applied the brakes again as one of the guys crawled out from under the container........:eek:

Both of us as white as a sheet looked to the guy who gave me the thumbs up ,to see He was well ****@d.
He went home early that night ,without injury (which was a miracle for we where both fuming)

That night the old pals act (others covering up for His condition) nearly cost a guy His life.
That was over 30 years ago,but I still go cold all over when I think of that near miss.:shake:
 
schrismonkey said:
It always seems to me that it's others that get hurt by drunk drivers either passengers or other road users and they walk away unscathed. I know this is prob a generalisation but it's how it seems to me !!
Click to expand...

I'm fairly sure drunks tend to go limp due to their lack of motor control. That actully makes them less likely to be hurt in an accident than if they were sober. Unfortunately.
 
There is nothing wrong with Drink Driving! Not a serious crime at all!

Well, so says the government (who make the laws and run the justice system) - From my local paper today:

A schoolgirl, who was knocked off her bike in a crash with a drink-driver in Cambridge, owes her life to the safety helmet she was wearing.
Rebecca Harri, 13, smashed the van’s windscreen with her head and was left unconscious and fitting at the side of the road.
Her dad Joel Harri, who was cycling in front of her along Cherry Hinton Road at the time of the crash on Tuesday, held his daughter in his arms as she lay there.
He said: "Those were the two most awful minutes of my life. I was praying and crying – holding her hand, asking her if she could hear me.
Miraculously Rebecca came away with only a graze to her hand and leg.
Delivery driver Alexander Moyes, 47, of Rampton Road, Cottenham, was banned from driving for two years, fined £250 and told to pay £100 costs at Cambridge Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday for drink-driving and driving without due care and attention.

Compare this to a story in another paper today about a 19yo who was on jury service and pulled a sickie to see a show, got 2 weeks inside and a criminal record????

If you can hit a young girl (and for the grace of god not kill or seriously injure) you get away almost scott free. If I was the Dad I would be keen to pay this bloke a private visit! He should have been jailed for a minimum of 5 years (I mean serve, not out in 18 months).
 
Whilst I agree with tougher sentencing it will never happen due to the prison population being close to capacity as it is, another reason why sentences are lower and in the current climate there is not set to be expansion.

In my area it is generally those in the 50+ bracket who are the biggest offenders. Being rural though very few are caught.
 
cambsno said:
Compare this to a story in another paper today about a 19yo who was on jury service and pulled a sickie to see a show, got 2 weeks inside and a criminal record????
Click to expand...

Drunk driving is a criminal offence, while I agree in a situation like this it would be appropriate for a prison sentence to be passed he hasn't got away scott free, every job application, every insurance application asks for criminal convictions to be declared, even a holiday to the USA may require a visa now

It also affects him every day for 2 years not to be able to drive, even that's double what he'd normally get

The juror went to prison because an example had to be made, my opinion is crimes that a lot of people "might" do if the chance arose such as the recent riots or skipping jury service if you didn't fancy it would get a harsh sentence so it makes the news and sows a seed of doubt in people likely to commit the same crime.
 
The juror went inside because his action may have caused the collapse of a trail. That has a direct effect on the defendants and the victim. It's also seem as an affront to the Court's authority, and therefore is serious.
Lets face it, hardly an important reason to not turn up is it!
In the case of the drink, not drunk driver, is the sentence light? Without knowing all of the circumstances and mitigation, it's not possible to say. The standard sentence is 12 months disqual and £250 fine, so, on the face of it, no it's not a light sentence.
 
Bernie174 said:
The juror went inside because his action may have caused the collapse of a trail. That has a direct effect on the defendants and the victim. It's also seem as an affront to the Court's authority, and therefore is serious.
Lets face it, hardly an important reason to not turn up is it!
In the case of the drink, not drunk driver, is the sentence light? Without knowing all of the circumstances and mitigation, it's not possible to say. The standard sentence is 12 months disqual and £250 fine, so, on the face of it, no it's not a light sentence.
Click to expand...

For me, the juror made a bit of a silly mistake. He is of little or no harm to anyone, and yes, it could have collapsed a trial, but surely a severe telling off would have been fine. The dd though could easily ignore the ban, or do the same in 2 years time. His fine is more than normal but what that says to me is that he courts deem a silly juror to be less risk than a possible killer. Another few miles an hour, or a bit more to one side could have seem her killed.

But that sums up a lot of the problems in this country, youths carrying knifes rarely get more than a slapon the wrist, dd like the one above gets what I think to be a flimsy punishment and these are people that will seriously harm or kill others. Yet you then get the juror and those MPs who fiddled expenses doing time... Well I know who I would describe as a bigger threat to the public.
 
The system is ,to me biased on the side of money,look at the train robbers,vicious Bar stuwards some of them granted,but no one was killed.
Some people kill and get off with much lighter sentences.

But the train robbers did pinch a vast amount of money at the time :nono:

Same with this juror whom skived of to watch a show,bl@@dy silly sod,but the cost of a trial and possible retrail figures are very much in the minds of our caretakers of justice system.:rules:
 
Last edited:
towershot said:
The system is ,to me biased on the side of money,look at the train robbers,vicious Bar stuwards some of them granted,but no one was killed.
Some people kill and get off with much lighter sentences.

But the train robbers did pinch a vast amount of money at the time :nono:

Same with this juror whom skived of to watch a show,bl@@dy silly sod,but the cost of a trial and possible retrail figures are very much in the minds of our caretakers of justice system.:rules:
Click to expand...

The reason why nobody was killed in the train robbery was pure luck and the poor guy they koshed died a little while later but proving it was a direct result of the injuries caused was too hard to make at the time and correct me if I am wrong but I think there used to be a law about a 'year and a day' for a conviction for such instances but I am sure that has now been overtaken by a much better scientific one.

Any one who uses menaces for gain should be shot on the spot by laser from all the cctv cameras we have.

I do hope none of you get the urge to knowingly drive under the influence and wish you all safe journeys.

Good debate.
 
I think the Train Robbers would have gone down for murder if the death had occurred within the one year and one day limit.
As for the Juror, I can't agree that it was a silly mistake. The Courts impress on Jurors how important their role is, and it should have been more than clear to him. It should also have been obvious to him that going to a show in London was not in the least bit important in the great scheme of things.
As for the driver, he's not been found guilty of what he could do in the future, he's been found guilty of what he has done. The future isn't a factor in sentencing, so there's no point in mentioning it.
Simple fact is that he has a higher than 'normal' sentence. That could be for a number of reasons, I don't know I didn't hear the case for either side, so it's impossible to know.
Is it whats wrong with the Country? No, not really, in fact I'd go so far as to say that the idiot Juror is a far better illustration of whats wrong with the country, no sense of responsibility, and an assumption that the world should bend around him.
 
just to carry on the debate........ and maybe throw in a curveball...... my legal knowedge is fairly crap, (though I do know my way round insurance)

Disclaimer: I sincerely 100% hope the following does not happen..

But supposing the young girl in Cambridge passes away from the injuries sustained in the accident.

Can the Driver now be charged with causing death though Drink driving / reckless driving / dangerous driving / careless driving?

Or has the sentence been passed for the offence and that's it?


(BTW: If it were my daughter I would be 110% unhappy with the verdict and would seriously consider some form of alternative action...;) - not condoning anything or suggesting anything, just a personal opinion. )
 
i agree with the dd campaigns i have been stopped at both the previous ones in my area and for the 5 minutes when you know theyre trying to sort a problem out its fine

also agree it should be more regular though
 
boliston said:
...I would rather see more done to target the large number of drivers who regularly drive in a very dangerous manner WHILE STONE COLD SOBER.
Click to expand...

It should not be an either/or situation - both problems should be dealt with.
 
Lyton

In general, you only get one bite at the cherry.
He's been found guilty (or perhaps pleaded, who knows) to Drink Driving, and the same for Careless driving. So the evidence obviously does not support reckless driving.
Therefore I'd doubt very much that a charge of causing death by careless driving would get anywhere simply because he's already been punished for the act.

JonnoC
Drink driving is enforced all year round. The Annual Xmas campaign is simply because more people decide to do it at this time of the year, apparently. A few years ago, there was a summer campaign, which made sense.
 
Last edited:
Lynton said:
just to carry on the debate........ and maybe throw in a curveball...... my legal knowedge is fairly crap, (though I do know my way round insurance)

Disclaimer: I sincerely 100% hope the following does not happen..

But supposing the young girl in Cambridge passes away from the injuries sustained in the accident.

Can the Driver now be charged with causing death though Drink driving / reckless driving / dangerous driving / careless driving?

Or has the sentence been passed for the offence and that's it?


(BTW: If it were my daughter I would be 110% unhappy with the verdict and would seriously consider some form of alternative action...;) - not condoning anything or suggesting anything, just a personal opinion. )
Click to expand...

Bernie174 said:
Lyton

In general, you only get one bite at the cherry.
He's been found guilty (or perhaps pleaded, who knows) to Drink Driving, and the same for Careless driving. So the evidence obviously does not support reckless driving.
Therefore I'd doubt very much that a charge of causing death by careless driving would get anywhere simply because he's already been punished for the act.

JonnoC
Drink driving is enforced all year round. The Annual Xmas campaign is simply because more people decide to do it at this time of the year, apparently. A few years ago, there was a summer campaign, which made sense.
Click to expand...

I believe from things that I've heard in the past that in the case of people seriously injured in a car crash, the police will take all the details from the scene and if the person dies within 365 days i.e. 1 year of the date of the incident then if the death relates to injuries sustained then the offender can still be prosecuted :thumbs:

In any case Drink Driving and Death by Dangerous Driving would be unrelated charges surely so I see no reason why the offender could not be prosecuted for the second offence :thinking:

The would be like a burglar whacking some of girl round the head when steeling her pension money, getting caught and found guilty of the burglary then she dies from the injury received after the burglary charge is prosecuted, the burglar could still go back to court on murder/manslaughter :rules:

Matt
MWHCVT
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top