The Country has gone mad.

[cee-dee]

First, a bloke crashes at 100MPH on the M5 while drink driving and only gets banned for 6 months plus a 12-month community order and ordered to take an advanced test.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2335075/Engineer-100mph-crash-spared-jail-claiming-sleep-driving.html

 Then we have a bloke fined £28,000 for cutting down a tree. (He owned the tree!).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10095375/Businessman-fined-28000-for-felling-protected-yew-tree.html

[spawnjohnuk]

The must have believed he didn't know what he was doing the bare feet may have been a cause for that. Saying that he should be banned forever or until a qualified doctor says he's cured,so I agree with you cd that no matter what the sentence doesn't make sense. 

[mitzigirl_123]

Really? So how did they determine this then?:-

"He was found to be almost twice the drink-drive limit."

This criminal law article is interesting.

http://www.kanslaw.com/blog/auto-brewery-syndrome-alcohol-in-your-body-without-drinking.html

[cee-dee]

It's an interesting point but I'd think it was so rare that whether the person had drunk alcohol or not, they were still "impaired" so they could have been charged with driving while medically unfit?

"Oh, I didn't know about it until this happened".

"OK old son, ignorance of the Law is no excuse. You're banned from driving until you can produce evidence that you ARE medically fit to drive."

[mitzigirl_123]

But all possible and could still be used as a mitigating circumstance?:|

[cee-dee]

Yes, you can use things "in mitigation" but you're still guilty but the mitigation only helps reduce the sentence.

Personally speaking, if someone was producing alcohol "naturally" I'd say they should be banned until they can prove they're "cured".

[upthecreekyetagain]

Really? So how did they determine this then?:-

"He was found to be almost twice the drink-drive limit."

Presumably from the hospital blood analysis that would have been carried out as a standard medical procedure.  Such a sample is not acceptable though as an evidential sample - the drink drive law requires certain procedures to be carried out regarding blood samples to be used for prosecutions including splitting the sample and providing one sample to the accused.

[upthecreekyetagain]

If it has been decided that the evidential specimen to be required is one of blood. The police officer making the requirement will state:

“I have decided the specimen shall be of blood and require you to provide a specimen. Failure to provide a specimen will render you liable to prosecution. Do you consent to provide a specimen of blood, which will be taken by a doctor (or health care professional) ?” **

The suspect must agree to provide the blood sample. If the suspect refuses they will be given a final warning from the police officer.

“I warn you again that failure to provide a specimen will render you liable to prosecution. Do you now consent to provide a specimen of blood, which will be taken by a doctor (or health care professional)?