Darren Day - Can someone explain this ?

Heliospherez

Heliospherez

Heliospherez

Soldato
Joined
3 Jan 2004
Posts
3,489
Location
At Home
Just read the news report on Darren Day in court.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/8606969.stm


Am I reading this right - or have I missed something.


As you can see from the report - he was drunk, drove and crashed (for a second time) - broke a streetlight and basically was a menace on the road - and could quite easily have killed someone - but somehow managed to plead not guilty (in the last paragraph) - and got off with it.

"Pleas of not guilty to careless driving, crashing into a lamppost, failing to report an accident to police and not co-operating with an initial breath test were accepted by the Crown."

So he had previously pleaded guilty to drink driving - and was fined a minimal amount of money for him..... And - I can sort of understand the getting done for the offensive weapon - but not actually serving time bit (and yes I do understand that he now has an offensive weapon on his record). But whats the deal with the rest of it ?

And yes - I know he is a D list celeb - so please no ' who cares ' replies. I'm more interested in the case outcome and why these choices were made. What if this was an average Joe Bloggs ? Would it be the same ?
 
Last edited:
He hasn't got off. He admitted the Drink driving charge at an earlier hearing. He was banned for 5 years and fined £1250 (which admittedly seems rather light).

As for the other charges of careless driving, failing to report an accident and refusing the initial breath test he entered a plea of not guilty at Court. As he has already admitted the Drink driving charge (which really is the ultimate aim i.e to get him banned) the Crown hasn't bothered going after him for Driving without due care and attention, failing to report and refusual to take the initial breath test.

Had he pleaded not guilty to the Drink drive charge and then been found not guilty at Court of this particular charge, then it would be likely that the Crown would have proceeded with prosecuting the Due Care/ Fail to report/ refusal to take the breath test.

As it is they have gone with the fact that he got a 5 year ban and a £1250 fine - if they had proceeded with the remaining three charges and he had been found guilty, it would not have significantly increased the penalty.

This probably would have happened and in fact does happen to 'Joe Bloggs' as well so no he hasn't been treated any differently.
 
Last edited:
Are you sure an average Joe Blogss would get the same treatment though - considering he had an 18 month ban in 2008 for the same offence (for which he pleaded not guilty - and again failed to give a breath test and was over the limit by the same amount)?

A 5 year ban and the small fine will mean nothing to him (considering the fact he can easily afford a driver and the fine) - and who pays for the damage to the streetlight ? There are numberous cases where genuine loss of control of cars has caused damage to barriers/lights etc with the council sending bills of many thousands for repair. Are these just written off as he has pleaded guilty to the crime ?
 
Last edited:
The fine seems rather light, but the ban seems about right. As for the damage to the street light - that will probably require the councils insurers to contact Days insurers to get them to pay out.

BTW he hasn't pleaded guilty to driving without due care and attention. He went not guilty - the Prosecution accepting the fact he pleaded to the Drink driving, seem to have discontinued the other charges.

Happens all the time. Go to your local Magistrates Court and sit in the back for a few hours and it will open your eyes as to how the CPS and the Defence Lawyers operate.
 
The illuminati that control both him and the Law no doubt got him a lenient sentence, just enough though the "bring him back in line" expect him to go into rehab shortly and maybe even shave off all of his hair.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom