A WOMAN caught driving after taking a cocktail of drink and drugs was cleared by a court because of an amazing loophole in the law.
Samantha Cox was found not guilty of failing to provide a breath sample after a marathon 11-hour court hearing - despite her lawyer admitting she had been drinking heavily and taking prescription drugs before getting behind the wheel.
If she had been found guilty, she could have faced a two-year driving ban and six months in jail.
But she avoided a conviction because a police officer had not read the mother-of-three her rights - because she was so incoherent.
Mrs Cox was defended by celebrity lawyer Nick Freeman - nicknamed `Mr Loophole' after winning dozens of high-profile motoring cases on technicalities.
Road safety campaigners expressed outrage over the ruling. Dianne Ferreira, a spokeswoman for charity Brake, said: "It is crazy when the system lets people off on technicalities when they have clearly committed offences.
"Nick Freeman says he is acting for the benefit of road safety, but he isn't. There are other ways of flagging up loopholes in the law without letting drivers off the hook."
Glitch
Paul Kelly, secretary of the Greater Manchester Police Federation, said: "If this lady has accepted that she drank a large amount of alcohol and drove, and the court accepts that, then she should lose her licence.
"It is just another glitch in the law which allows someone to continue driving when they shouldn't do."
Mrs Cox, an environmental health officer, was arrested after being spotted driving down the middle of the road and narrowly avoiding a collision with a police car.
The 34-year-old had been drinking heavily on July 1 last year because her divorce had been finalised and had also consumed several sleeping and anti-depressant tablets.
Magistrates cleared Mrs Cox, who lives in Oakley Close, Timperley, and awarded her costs out of the central fund.
She said: "It has been a weight on my mind over the last year and I just feel that I have been given a second chance and I can get on with my life."
Mrs Cox, a mother of three children aged 13, nine and five, told the MEN she had taken out a loan so she could employ Mr Freeman, although she declined to say what the fee had been.
She said she faced ruin if she had been convicted.
Depression
She said she would have lost her two jobs - one for a local authority and another as a consultant - and she would have lost her house as she would have been unable to continue with her mortgage payments. However she insisted she had not "got away with it" but that the police had failed to recognise that she was ill and not drunk.
She said she had been diagnosed with agitated depression for which she was taking sleeping tablets and diazepam. She said: "How I was treated at the police station was one of the reasons I spoke to Nick Freeman. I didn't have any rights."
Talking about the incident, she said: "I'd just got divorced. I don't get any money from my ex-husband. I've got three children and two jobs and I haven't been able to plan my work properly.
'Second chance'
"I suffer from agitated depression which I've been treated for. If you spoke to anybody that knows me they say I have served a sentence for the last year.
"I feel like a whole weight has been lifted from my shoulders and I can start my life again. I have been given a second chance. The circumstances of my arrest were that I had had a drink and sleeping tablets to help me sleep because that had been the day of my divorce.
Asked how she felt when the not guilty verdict was returned, she said: "It was absolute relief. I just feel like it's my second chance. I don't feel like I have won."
WHAT do you think of this legal loophole? Have your say.
Tweet
Comments
Login or Register to comment
I wonder how depressed she would have felt had she killed someone while driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs?
She should feel ashamed of herself!
Everyone knows not to drink while taking antibiotics-total common sense which she clearly lacks!
About time this type of thing was stopped...
Do the crime..pay the time.
The womans employers should seriously consider her status with them as an environmental health officer (an enforcer of LAW !!)
It really is time that the antics of Nick Freeman are stopped. Somebody somewhere is going to die or be seriously injured before too long, injured or killed by a driver still on the road only owing to the manoeuvrings of this man.
I'm normally one to say 'lock 'em up and throw away the key', but this woman has clearly had personal problems. That's not excusing her - her act was clearly very selfish - but I can't see what there was to be gained in punishing her further.
Can someone find a loophole to get Freeman banned from being a lawyer?
What a poor state of affairs.When a known death trap is let off.Pity the law abiding citizens.She should have been banned.
She's also got a terrible memory! She claims the police failed to recognise she was ill and not drunk yet her lawyer admitted she had been drinking heavily. Too easy to get off on a technicality I'm afraid. If procedures aren't properly followed it should reduce the sentence not get the case dismissed.
It doesn't take long for the police to read rights. It's their fault. I am happy that Blair has not been allowed to fully convert Britain into a police state, yet.
Be very careful when crossing the road Mr Freeman. Loopholes can make lawyers money - but they can kill people as well.
Anyone who gets behing a wheel after a drink is just damn right selfish no excuses.
Everyone knows if you suffer depression you are not suppose to drink as it makes it all worse and everyoneknows that.
If she'd killed someone would she have still got off?
As a mother of three she should act more responsibly and set an example to her children,poor mites.
It is not Nick Freemans fault that he is better at his job than most of the Police force in this country are at theirs. Police are supposed to be well trained and with strict rules to follow and if they dont follow procedures through incompetence it is their own fault when criminals walk. It is the public who suffer so prehaps the police should come under even greater disciplinary measures and maybe they will do their jobs properly.
Wonder if Mr Loophole would have been eager to defend if she does it agian.
Disgraceful.
I suppose that if the policeman had read this woman her 'rights' while she was intoxicated then Mr Freeman would have said she shouldn't be convicted because she was in no fit state to understand what was being said to her.
Funny thing, the law. All it seems to do is make lots of money for lawyers.
Just look at the picture, are we supposed to feel sorry for her? Well done love, you are a disgrace to yourself, your kids and your profession. And WE have paid for it. What is this world coming to?? Hang your head in shame!
She'll be repaying Freeman for years - bet that didn't come cheap. But nice to see that he'll work for the working class as well as celebs. If I were her employer(s) I'd still sack her on principle
Come on coppers sort it out. Shame on this woman though. She's a disgrace to herself and her children and her employers should sack her.
Failing to read someone their rights is hardly a loophole - it's an essential protection against police entrapment.
Can't blame Nick Freeman. He didn't create the loopholes, he only exploits them. The people to blame are those who left loopholes open, and those who don't close them.
I am pleasently supprised by some of the comments on this thread. Particularly Roger, from Oldham who seems to have hit the nail on the head. Reading someone their rights is as much an essential part of policing as the courts are to justice. It's nice to see that the courts are just as unforgiving when the police make mistakes as the police are when we do. Lets hope this is a sign of things to come.
As a serving police officer nothing surprises me any more. However I think you should know your facts before criticising the police. We are governed by the police codes of practice which state: "A person who is arrested, or further arrested, must also be cautioned unless it is impracticable to do so by reason of their condition or behaviour at the time" It would appear that this woman did fit into this category therefore did not need to be cautioned.
This just makes a total mockery of the law
Joe Public 1, GMP 0.
as usual money talks
hopefully she will learn from this lesson
If a Loop hole in the Law protects criminals, who indeed will protect the victims ? A total ban on driving should have been given !!!
How can this woman, an Environmental Health Officer now continue to carry out her job, how can she enforce the law?