The police gave me a fine for Public Drunkeness when I was a few minutes away from home

Loneland on 10/12/2016 - 06:57

So basically on Wednesday, I was walking home from the pub which I live 5 minutes away from.
I was about 2 minutes away from home when the cops pulled me over and issued me with a fine for Public Drunkenness.

In my defense, I was quite drunk, but was perfectly capable of walking home. I was kind of really tired, so I was walking pretty slowly.
I wasn't cheeky to the cops nor loud or anything, since I'm a pretty quiet drunk. When they pulled me over, my speech was slightly slurred, but I told them that I was only a few minutes away from home and they still booked me.

I was neither being rowdy or a nuisance and the bartender can vouch for me, since I was having a pretty terrible day in my personal life.
I ended up getting an infringement notice to pay 6 penalty units, so a fine for $870

What are the chances of taking this to court and getting the fine revoked? I've heard of cases being thrown out of court.

I find it frankly ridiculous, since I'm not sure why I would have taken a cab home for a 5 minute walk.

Automotive

Comments

        • [Deactivated] on 13/12/2016 - 12:42

          @jenkemjunkie:
          That might be damming. Make sure you check for accidental past participles in correct places. Don't be shy about that hypothetical 'catastrophe' of yours. Do tell.

        • jenkemjunkie on 13/12/2016 - 13:15

          @Probable Cause:

          I'm coming down to Melbourne this Friday for a few weeks to do some maritime work. Just send a PM and you can meet the machismo in person. If you talk the way you write, the wharfies will definitely give you a hard time. I'll get you a visitors pass with the name probable cause on it and everything!

        • [Deactivated] on 13/12/2016 - 13:24

          @jenkemjunkie:
          Captain Birdseye, please make triply sure that my "visitors pass" doesn't contain an apostrophe, and use a red crayon, Clag and safety scissors so you don't hurt yourself.

        • jenkemjunkie on 13/12/2016 - 13:30

          @Frugal Rock:

          Sure thing. Just send the PM mate

        • [Deactivated] on 13/12/2016 - 13:32

          @jenkemjunkie:
          Do you lift or something :p I'll challenge the weed in your avatar to an arm wrestle for charity. Loser pays $500 to charity.

        • jenkemjunkie on 13/12/2016 - 14:17

          @Frugal Rock:

          Sure. Show commitment. Send a PM.

        • [Deactivated] on 13/12/2016 - 14:25

          @jenkemjunkie:
          Fire away Bashful, I've enabled them.

        • jenkemjunkie on 13/12/2016 - 15:20

          @Frugal Rock:

          Still waiting

        • [Deactivated] on 13/12/2016 - 15:34

          @jenkemjunkie:
          Tell your GP if you are still undescended, not me. I think it's funny.

        • [Deactivated] on 13/12/2016 - 18:10

          @jenkemjunkie:
          Duty Lawyer Dangleberry has pretended to know where I live via PM. Ego dented much?

        • Serapis on 13/12/2016 - 20:50
          +1

          @Frugal Rock @jenkemjunkie: Respondent realises they are out of their depth and rebuts with vocabulary correction as argument takes a turn, love it.

          Quite obvious neither of you are lawyers and/or working as you're both arguing on OZBargain during midday in the lead up to Christmas.

        • [Deactivated] on 13/12/2016 - 21:18

          @Serapis:
          Provided I self funded early retirement, your condescension from below might be ambitious. What's your actual point about working other than a martyr act?

          I remember one time working for a bank, I spent my own money creating a huge bulldog clip sculpture. Some saw the geometric and bendy beauty in it, some others loved to say 'some people have too much time on their hands'. Yes, the detractors were the least useful employees and did the least free overtime. I have my antisocial tendencies, but I thankfully skipped the judgement of other people's time superiority complex.

        • jenkemjunkie on 14/12/2016 - 11:44
          +2

          @Serapis:

          I will admit that I was being a prick and have apologised to Frugal Rock via PM. The lawyer bit is surprisingly true.

        • Serapis on 14/12/2016 - 18:29

          @Frugal Rock:

          Bit hypocritical to say I'm being condescending whilst implying that I'm 'below' you. I don't really care about your financial status, you can wave that stick elsewhere
          ¯_(ツ)_/¯

          Was merely pointing out the idiocy of this chain argument and making an observation about how long your argument went for, albeit with slight aggression and sarcasm.

          @jenkemjunkie:

          Now that i went back and read what I wrote, might have come across a bit too aggressive… sorry =)

          A lawyer might give legal advice online but shouldn't say that they're a lawyer just in case someone comes back saying they relied on your advice. Even though no duty should be owed as no fees etc are taken, should still take this as a precaution… Just my 2c.

        • jenkemjunkie on 14/12/2016 - 19:09
          +1

          @Serapis:

          I think Frugal Rock may have got the idea that you were implying we were a bunch of jobless bums flaming away on the internet with nothing better to do. Which is fair enough. Arguments and implications on the internet are infinite and I know I can be stubborn. My conduct alone may even be construed as putting the profession into disrepute - so no need to apologise for getting that idea about me.

          I will concede I got real nasty over PM then had a moment to reflect on my absolutely vulgar behaviour which he didn't even stoop to.

        • [Deactivated] on 14/12/2016 - 19:19

          @Serapis:
          Hogwash. Your December issue of "I'm fine", the monthly e-magazine for passive aggressives arrived and you were testing the 'layering (barely) veiled insults through indirection and implication' guide and 'schadenfreude your way to validation' column.

          I would point out the idiocy and highfalutin intellectual overreach of people pretentiously using 'implying' to describe a direct assertion, but I'll humbly bite my tongue on that one. For the team.

        • Serapis on 14/12/2016 - 22:46
          +1

          @jenkemjunkie: lol IMHO the reputation of the legal profession is kinda shot anyway, nothing you said would have made it worse than it already is =P

  • [Deactivated] on 10/12/2016 - 08:35
    -2

    if you told them you're drunk it's an admission of guilt

    acab

    • sator on 12/12/2016 - 14:23
      +3

      i don't understand why people down-voted him. reality must be uncool

      • [Deactivated] on 12/12/2016 - 17:28

        haters gonna hate

        pack mentality yo!

        they were probably coppers

  • Donaldhump on 10/12/2016 - 08:39
    +21

    the fine doesn't fit the crime. i would challenge it.

  • mskeggs on 10/12/2016 - 08:54
    +8

    If that is all that happened, the cops are acting pretty unreasonably.
    Is there anything else you might have omitted from the story?
    E.g. I'm a member of an outlaw bikie gang that just got bail after being charged with a drive by, hence my bad day, but that should be irrelevant to the Police actions.

    • Adz81 on 10/12/2016 - 09:03

      This.

      • oneland on 10/12/2016 - 09:49
        +2

        Nope

        I'm just a law abiding OzBargainer

        I Just had a really bad day with bad news in the family.

        Only thing strange is that fact that they sent the infringement to my parents house in Thomastown, which is the address on the front of my license, not the sticker provided by vicroads that shows correct address on the back

        thats what im confused about

        • spackbace on 10/12/2016 - 11:34
          +2

          sent the infringement

          Why wouldn't they hand write it and give it to you on the spot?

        • johndemonik on 10/12/2016 - 13:58
          +4

          Ozbargainers are known law breakers that travel at excessively high speeds in their vehicles to get to the bargains first and overuse vouchers in order steal dominos pizza, red rooster meals and cheap alcohol. They are a scourge on society. Best be quiet about being one around the law.

        • oneland on 10/12/2016 - 14:33
          +1

          @Spackbace: I have no idea why they didn't.

        • dealman on 11/12/2016 - 11:38

          Were you walking on the road or on the footpath ?

        • Stphen on 11/12/2016 - 13:54
          +4

          Do you think it is possible there might have been some confusion with your address on the night? Maybe the police thought you were lying about your address, that you were not really 2 minutes away from home and maybe your address was coming up as Thomastown when/if they checked?

        • blergmonkeys on 12/12/2016 - 08:59

          @johndemonik:

          You forgot to mention that all this is powered by hundreds of eneloops.

        • oneland on 12/12/2016 - 23:14

          @Stphen:

          I think that might have been the issue. I'm meeting the police officer next week, and hopefully i can clear it out with them

          Maybe they thought i might have been lying, in which case, I was not, since I have the sticker with the changed address on the back

    • sator on 12/12/2016 - 14:25

      Hahaha, totally agree. Probably left out the attitude, swearing, and trying to tackle down the copper

  • chumlee on 10/12/2016 - 09:14
    +3

    For someone quite drunk you remember a lot of details or just telling us what we want to hear. I would like to hear the other side too

    • macrocephalic on 12/12/2016 - 10:41
      +1

      It affects different people in different ways. I can be staggering drunk and still remember what happened. It's not until I get to the passing out stage that I start to forget things.

    • icyprincess on 12/12/2016 - 17:56

      I remember everything when I would drink. no huge memory holes for me. I always thought people used the drunk so no memory thing as an excuse.

    • save my dollarydoos on 12/12/2016 - 19:25

      I find I forget the stuff I want to remember and remember the stuff I'd sooner forget

  • [Deactivated] on 10/12/2016 - 09:18
    +3

    Consider yourself lucky that you didn't spend the night in the slammer next to Marcus the meathhead and Roger the rapist.

    • Slippery Fish on 10/12/2016 - 10:33
      +2

      Lol Rodger the rapist made me think "well id be a Rodger dodger" :)

    • bargainslut on 10/12/2016 - 23:31
      -2

      Are you a police officer Thorton82? Nope.

  • [Deactivated] on 10/12/2016 - 09:19
    +25

    Apparently you should have driven home

  • Flying Ace on 10/12/2016 - 09:21
    +5

    So this is essentially fining someone because they might do something, as opposed to they actually did commit a crime?

    • Ughhh on 10/12/2016 - 10:03
      -6

      So it should be legal to carry a butchers knife around, as long as you don't chop someone?

      • Flying Ace on 10/12/2016 - 10:14
        +5

        I think there's a slight difference between someone carrying a potentially deadly weapon, and someone going about their business walking home after having a couple too many drinks.

      • Slippery Fish on 10/12/2016 - 10:34
        +1

        Yes, how else do you ensure pigs dont fly…

      • bobbified on 10/12/2016 - 14:18
        +16

        It's legal to carry all the tools of rape in your pants, as long as you don't rape someone.

        • Kangal on 11/12/2016 - 12:37
          +1

          Not for long, if parliament pampers to all these (weird) SJW's demands.

        • bobbified on 12/12/2016 - 16:13
          -1

          @Kangal:

          • shivers * @ the mention of SJWs
    • Kevan2 on 10/12/2016 - 23:31

      View please = https://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/find-legal-answers/criminal-…

      sorry missed the following post But this still adds to info i hope

    • Flying Ace on 11/12/2016 - 08:39
      +9

      And to add to this point - did they provide the OP with a lift home, or did they still let him walk the remaining distance even though he was a potential menace to society, in which case the fine is even more ridiculous. If he was such a menace, shouldn't they escort him home?

  • whooah1979 on 10/12/2016 - 09:23

    http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/4593/is-public-drunkennes…

    Public drunkenness laws

    Both Queensland and Victoria have laws in reference to a person being drunk in a public place within the respective Summary Offences Acts, and using Victoria’s provisions as our guide, a person under s 13 who is found drunk in a public place shall be guilty of an offence.

    The Summary Offences Act 1966 (VIC) considers some of the following areas as a “public place”:

    public highway, road, street, bridge, footpath, court, alley, passage or thoroughfare, notwithstanding that it may be formed on private property;
    park, garden, reserve, or other place of public recreation or resort;
    railway station, platform or carriage;
    Government school, or connecting lands;
    markets;
    racecourse, cricket and football grounds or any other place where members of the public are present.

    There is no equivalent law in New South Wales, however, a person who is drunk can still be detained if they are found to be intoxicated in a public place under s 206(1) of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002. The New South Wales Act considers a person to be intoxicated if they are:

    behaving in a disorderly manner or in a manner likely to cause injury to the person or another person or damage to property; or
    be in need of physical protection because of intoxication.

  • cmdwedge on 10/12/2016 - 09:55
    +11

    Did they breathalyze you? I'd absolutely be challenging it in court either way. Quietly walking home from the pub, not causing a public nuisance - stuff them. That's just revenue-raising nonsense.

    • oneland on 10/12/2016 - 10:01
      +5

      Thats exactly it

      I posed no danger to anyone

      I'm a pretty quiet person, and I didn't treat the cops with contempt or rudeness

      Just handed over my wallet when they asked for ID and kept quiet

      • Kangal on 11/12/2016 - 12:43
        +7

        Just ask to get the police report.
        Contest it.
        And have your 30 seconds in court.

        • You can state your POV
        • Show that you have no prior offences or committed crimes
        • You can say the Police have no evidence of you actually being drunk
          ("smells like alcohol" isn't an evidence if you came out of a Bar)
        • And say that the police then allowed you to carry on, that if it was a public nuisance or threat, they WOULD have detained you
        • Also state that thing about "Plan B" about taking a Cab, Train, or Walking Home even though it's in another state,
          it can make things seem more reasonable for your POV

        But usually, in these cases a police officer may need to be present in the courtroom.
        And if they (likely) fail to show up, the judge may (likely) just throw the case out.
        Either way, Good Luck.

        • LeavingTheWheel on 11/12/2016 - 19:19

          A mate of mine would look completely drunk after a few wines.
          He had diabetes, blood sugar levels can make you behave in the strangest of ways.

          Absolutely, they should have tested him.

        • Storm on 12/12/2016 - 13:26

          Good point that they let him continue. If he was really a danger to the public or himself, they would have taken him to the lockup, or home.

          You did break the law, and did do something stupid. You should have had someone sober walk you home.

          But, I would hope that a judge would see you in court, apologetic but with a reason to be drunk that night (you'll need to provide proof of the bad family news or he'll just call BS), proof of your current address (otherwise he'll believe what's in the Police Incident Report), and just say that you accept you broke the law (unknowingly), but that you think the punishment is excessive, especially considering your clean record.

          Worth a go. The cops definitely made a mistake on the address.

          If you did do anything like dance in the traffic then don't bother contesting.

        • sator on 12/12/2016 - 14:27
          +1

          @LeavingTheWheel:

          They aren't allowed to… he was not driving a vehicle

        • ICMushroom on 12/12/2016 - 15:23
          +1

          @sator: That's what I was honking. Doesn't the 0.05 alcohol limit only apply to driving?

        • sator on 12/12/2016 - 20:25
          +1

          @ICMushroom:

          I'm pretty sure it is. People seem to be misunderstanding. Cops can't just go testing anyone. I imagine them seeing a person displaying all signs of intoxication is sufficient ground for them to form their opinion.

        • oneland on 14/12/2016 - 17:42

          They will not provide it.
          A subpoena has to be provided according to the police station

  • altomic on 10/12/2016 - 09:59
    +30

    Magistrate -"Oneland, how drunk were you?"
    Oneland - "as drunk as a judge, your honour"
    Magistrate - "case dismissed…meet me in my chamber in 2 minutes" <makes drinky-drinky hand gesture>

    • Kangal on 11/12/2016 - 12:44
      +2

      That hand gesture is pretty similar to the hand gesture they use for "(profanity)".
      You sure he won't misread the judge's reaction?

  • whooah1979 on 10/12/2016 - 10:22
    +5

    the cops pulled me over

    Were they in a patrol vehicle? If so, the they should've a vid recording of you committing the offence. Ask to hear the matter in court. You'll then be able to view the vid.

    Btw were three two of them?

    • oneland on 10/12/2016 - 14:33

      Yes
      It was two of them

      • lyl-Lychee on 12/12/2016 - 08:45

        Did they drive you home after or just fine you and let you keep walking? Edit:nvm you mentioned your friend picked you up after in post below.

        And out of curiosity what suburb is this? Prahran? CBD?

  • ranap on 10/12/2016 - 10:34
    +3

    Were you walking ON the road or BY the roadside? Could it be possible that you were walking on the road instead of the pavement. Your swerving on the road could have been dangerous for you or the drivers on the road.

    • oneland on 10/12/2016 - 14:35
      +3

      I was on the path, I wasn't near the road.

  • garffi on 10/12/2016 - 10:43
    +10

    If the cops were nice enough, they should've walked you home.

    • Marcsie on 10/12/2016 - 13:59
      +1

      I wish you are that nice cop :)
      I believe they will have more important things to do :)

  • Diji1 on 10/12/2016 - 11:47

    How the hell would you know how you were acting? By your own account you were very drunk.

    • oneland on 10/12/2016 - 14:37
      +1

      I drank a lot, but I ended up puking up a fair bit at the pub before i left.

      I believe I was very capable of walking down the block home. I know my words were quite slurred as my friend ended up picking me up so that they could take me home, otherwise the police said that i had to stay overnight in lockup, so I ended up calling someone who lived nearby to pick me up

      In the morning I called him, and he told me what happened.

      • [Deactivated] on 10/12/2016 - 19:11
        +4

        I apologise in advance for the following, but if cops ask me how much I've drunk, you've inspired me to ask 'counting the puke or not?' :)

        • sd4f on 11/12/2016 - 22:16
          +1

          My Grandfather responded to a police officer, when being asked why he was driving (drunk), he said that he couldn't walk…

      • Storm on 12/12/2016 - 13:27

        Would be nice if you told the WHOLE story at the start.

        Scratch my earlier comment of the cops just letting you carry on.

      • sator on 12/12/2016 - 14:31

        Puking only purges alcohol still in your stomach, it does not magically remove alcohol from your bloodstream.

        "I believe I was…" … Sorry, but most people are unwilling to believe a drunk's person interpretation of events

  • Marcsie on 10/12/2016 - 13:56
    -7

    What's different with a few minutes or a few hours from home ? you are in a public area,you may run over by a car while crossing the road or trip over while walking on footpath,just pay the fine and learn a valuable lesson :)

  • Adz81 on 10/12/2016 - 14:06
    -7

    Yeah, nah…

    I'm gonna go ahead and say there's a whole other side to this story that explains exactly why the police issued such a fine…

    • oneland on 10/12/2016 - 14:43
      +9

      Hey Adz81

      There isn't another side of the story, i'm actually a pretty transparent guy in general.There may be when I get the incident report, but Im a fairly quiet dude.

      I'm asking for advice from the ozbargain community, since I value the advice of the ozbargain community. I have no benefit in lying since it would serve no benefit when I actually contest it in court. Lying is obviously not going to help me, so I'm trying to provide you guys with what I remember happening and what my mate told me in the morning, so I can get the advice to help me out

      • Adz81 on 10/12/2016 - 15:29
        -5

        You were drunk to the point of puking, the police wouldn't let you walk home and you called you friend who told you what happened… how can you be sure there isn't another side to the story?

  • Cheap Charlie on 10/12/2016 - 14:37
    +4

    My question to the OP is, Once you were issued the fine, how did you get home?
    Did the Police allow you to walk home?

    In the event they allowed you to walk home, could you be in a position to argue the validity of the fine?
    If you are charged with DUI, the police do not stuff you back in your car to continue on your way.
    If you are charged with Domestic Villance, after being charged the Police dont take you back to the scene to continue on where you left off.
    In the event the Police did not allow you to continue on foot, obviously this argument is null and void.

    • oneland on 10/12/2016 - 14:39
      +1

      I had to call someone to pick me up who lived next to me
      He ended up driving me home

      • Cheap Charlie on 10/12/2016 - 14:41
        +3

        OK, well that kind of paints a picture about the state the Police felt you were in.
        If I was you I would roll the dice on disputing the fine in court.
        Time to get your hair cut and borrow a suit from your Dad.

      • sator on 12/12/2016 - 14:33

        Doesn't that mean the police have in fact fulfilled their obligations by placing you in the care of a responsible adult?
        When did we start seeing the police as a taxi service?

  • Mumbles on 10/12/2016 - 15:04

    I did a Google search on "law Public Drunkenness victoria".

    Extract from https://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/find-legal-answers/criminal-…
    "On-the-spot fines
    Police can issue on-the-spot fines for public drunkenness or for breaching a barring order.

    Police can also issue fines on-the-spot or by post to people aged over 18 for a number of common offences, including:

    • indecent language
    • offensive behaviour
    • consuming or supplying liquor on unlicensed premises
    • failure to leave licensed premises when requested."

    If it goes to court and becomes a He said, She said situation then I think the judge is going to side with Victoria Police.

    Since OP has no memory and has no witnesses it will be interesting to hear the Police officers side of the story.

    The most cost effective action is start by chatting or telephoning the officer who gave you the fine. The OP might find that it was totally reasonable.

    The link above also mentions:
    "drunk in a public place: maximum of eight penalty units
    drunk and disorderly: first offence – maximum of 20 penalty unit or three days prison"
    "One penalty unit is currently $155.46 from 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017."

    Sounds like the Police officer gave a cheaper fine.

    • Donaldhump on 10/12/2016 - 17:57
      +7

      Lol 3 days in jail, that's more than murder these days

    • stalker878 on 12/12/2016 - 02:57

      i am very rusty in my limited knowledge of law proceedings so correct me if i am wrong..
      since this is a criminal case, isn't it the prosecuting party to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that OP's crime?

      • Charity on 12/12/2016 - 19:15

        Confusing? It should be. On-the-spot fines turn justice on its head. It becomes guilty until proven innocent. The selected "crimes" are intentionally petty and the fines are relatively small. Big enough to collectively raise big $, but too small for most to defend themselves against. Pretty good scam actually.

        You see, On the Spot fine laws are the real crime, and have no business in a civilised society

        • sator on 12/12/2016 - 20:40

          Doesn't it help reduce the workload on the courts? I can't imagine what it would be like if everyone had to go to court for every single petty offence e.g. littering. Prove it!… errr… i saw you….

          Seems like a waste of government resources.

          "Crime", "civilised society", revenue raising… cute ideas

  • cjbowden on 10/12/2016 - 15:09
    +9

    The punishment seems quite harsh. The reality is there are likely hundreds of people that are drunk in a public place right now, and come Saturday night you would find thousands. If the Police were serious about this offence they could wait outside any licensed premises. There are quite a few opinions here that think because you were drunk, and in a public place you are guilty. My view is there must be a reason for fining you, and a quick scan of Victorian Legal Aid suggests they would charge you either for your own protection, or because you were acting in a disorderly manner.

    If this was a $200 fine, I would suggest you save yourself the hassle and just pay it, but for $870 I personally would contest it. Wait for the charge sheet and see if you can tell what they claim you actually did to merit the fine (again just being drunk in a public place isnt enough). If it was me, I wouldnt be a dick about it, and just appear in court and state my case that you were not harming anyone.

    You may find that the police wont even turn up to the court, in which case it will be dismissed.

    • oneland on 10/12/2016 - 15:24
      +2

      Thanks for the advice

      I'll definately contest the fine, since it doesn't really fit the crime.

      The police could therefore book anyone that walked out of the pub for public drunkeness as they walked to a cab for example

      I would understand if they fined me if I was acting in a disorderly manner, but as I mentioned I'm a pretty quiet person when drunk.

      One of the things I'm worried about is contesting the fine in court, if found guilty, will I obtain a criminal record? I deferred med in 2013, in lieu of a different degree as a temporary delay, before starting in 2018. I understand that the Med Board of Australia, does not specifically state the types of offences, it just states you must provide a criminal record check, but seeing this is a petty matter, if I do contest and are found guilty, do I try to contest it?

      Or is it better to pay the fine and not have the criminal record

      • chumlee on 10/12/2016 - 15:26

        You will not get a criminal record but you do risk having to pay a couple hundred more $$ in costs if you lose

      • cjbowden on 10/12/2016 - 16:26

        Have a look here:

        https://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/sites/www.legalaid.vic.gov.a…

        It states that a conviction is unlikely unless you were doing something else as well. As Chumlee stated you could be up for additional costs, but you may also be fined less by a magistrate.

        • Finde on 10/12/2016 - 17:35
          +2

          There are two different offenses.

          Drunk in public and drunk and disorderly in public. You cannot legally be in public if you're drunk and it is an offense

          It is also an offense for licensed premises to allow you to get that drunk and they risk losing their license by doing so.

          Good luck contesting it, but you have admitted you were drunk here. Therefore the offense is complete. If they had given you a ticket for drunk AND disorderly in a public place then that would be a different matter.

          If you pay a ticket, it's goes off into the never never. If you go to court, when you get found guilty, the magistrate has the option of finding you guilty with conviction and fine. The conviction will show up on all police checks.

        • oneland on 10/12/2016 - 20:15

          @Finde: Hey Finde
          Are you sure about the criminal conviction for the police checks?
          This is why I am quite unsure

        • Finde on 11/12/2016 - 01:47

          @oneland:

          As far as I know, all results from court show up in a police check but I don't know for certain.

          Quite often in job applications, you have to fill out sections about whether you have ever been charged with an offense, gone to court and found guilty etc. Contesting and having to answer yes to one of those questions in the first place might not look so great.

        • phluffed on 13/12/2016 - 01:39

          @oneland:
          They can rule guilty and no conviction recorded.

  • bingsta on 10/12/2016 - 16:00
    +5

    Your honour, "In my defense, I was quite drunk, …"

    Good opening line yo

    • modsec802 on 10/12/2016 - 19:43

      But I was fine after I puked at the pub

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join