Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Ray Wilkins drink driving
Chris_from_Sidcup
Posts: 36,010
Former England and Chelsea footballer Ray Wilkins was too drunk to stand when he was stopped for driving his car erratically, a court has been told.
Mr Wilkins, 56, slurred his words and leaned on his Jaguar for support when he was pulled over near his Cobham home in May 2012, magistrates heard.
North Surrey Magistrates' Court also heard he fell asleep in a police patrol car and later swore at officers.
Mr Wilkins denies a charge of drinking and driving.
Tests taken at a police station showed he was almost three times the legal limit.
The former England midfielder was arrested on 7 May last year after his car was seen "weaving" down the road at about 01:45 BST, the court heard.
It was alleged Mr Wilkins's car had "lurched" forward and then hit a traffic island.
PC Nicholas Skidmore told the court: "There was a strong smell of intoxicating liquor in the vehicle and around him.
"When he got out of the vehicle, he couldn't stand up properly," he said.
"He had to lean against the car."
The officer said he handcuffed the Sky Sports football pundit, who then fell asleep in his unmarked police car.
The court was told Mr Wilkins was then taken to a local police station where he was told he could not make a call to his wife until he had provided two breath samples.
CCTV played to the court showed him apparently trying to complete the tests.
Paul Lund for the prosecution said Mr Wilkins would challenge the result of the breath test.
He said: "Mr Wilkins says that he can't have drunk enough to produce that high reading.
"At the end of the day, the defence is relying on Mr Wilkins' assertion that he hadn't drunk enough.
"He would say that, wouldn't he?"
How can he have the cheek to challenge this?!
His defence is basically that there is no way he was 3 times the limit as he hadn't drunk that much...........................despite smashing his car into an island in the middle of the road, not being able to stand up properly and falling asleep in the back of the police car.
Mr Wilkins, 56, slurred his words and leaned on his Jaguar for support when he was pulled over near his Cobham home in May 2012, magistrates heard.
North Surrey Magistrates' Court also heard he fell asleep in a police patrol car and later swore at officers.
Mr Wilkins denies a charge of drinking and driving.
Tests taken at a police station showed he was almost three times the legal limit.
The former England midfielder was arrested on 7 May last year after his car was seen "weaving" down the road at about 01:45 BST, the court heard.
It was alleged Mr Wilkins's car had "lurched" forward and then hit a traffic island.
PC Nicholas Skidmore told the court: "There was a strong smell of intoxicating liquor in the vehicle and around him.
"When he got out of the vehicle, he couldn't stand up properly," he said.
"He had to lean against the car."
The officer said he handcuffed the Sky Sports football pundit, who then fell asleep in his unmarked police car.
The court was told Mr Wilkins was then taken to a local police station where he was told he could not make a call to his wife until he had provided two breath samples.
CCTV played to the court showed him apparently trying to complete the tests.
Paul Lund for the prosecution said Mr Wilkins would challenge the result of the breath test.
He said: "Mr Wilkins says that he can't have drunk enough to produce that high reading.
"At the end of the day, the defence is relying on Mr Wilkins' assertion that he hadn't drunk enough.
"He would say that, wouldn't he?"
How can he have the cheek to challenge this?!
His defence is basically that there is no way he was 3 times the limit as he hadn't drunk that much...........................despite smashing his car into an island in the middle of the road, not being able to stand up properly and falling asleep in the back of the police car.
0
Comments
-
It was alleged Mr Wilkins's car had "lurched" forward and then hit a traffic island.
That's his defence, everyone know he only went sideways.0 -
My word0
-
When he was struggling to stand up and had to lean on his car, surely one of the coppers told him to stay on his feet0
-
Young man.0
-
When we speak of a manager having "lost the dressing room" isn't that a way of saying he was too pissed to find it? Shurely shome mishtake!0
-
ha, good one.Chris_from_Sidcup said:When he was struggling to stand up and had to lean on his car, surely one of the coppers told him to stay on his feet
Why doesnt he just hold his hands up and get on with it. Ridiculous to challenge.
0 -
Typical Millwall0
-
Smashing Ralph0
-
Quite funny reading his rants at the policeman, as he strikes me as probably the politest/most innocent pundit there is in the game.0
-
Don't any of these ageing sports people or celebraties and such like, have the card of a cab company in their wallets or purses. Or don't they have the intelligence to organise a designated driver or indeed have a chauffeur on their payroll (I'm sure they can be tax deductable). No they would much rather face ridicule etc in the media by employing the services of a slick lawyer to try to get them off on an implausable excuse or technicality! Rant over.0
- Sponsored links:
-
Selfish ****.0
-
Ray...stay on your feet.0
-
Policeman had an appropriate name Skidmore.0
-
You have to say that's top drawer wasting of tax payers money.Curb_It said:
ha, good one.Chris_from_Sidcup said:When he was struggling to stand up and had to lean on his car, surely one of the coppers told him to stay on his feet
Why doesnt he just hold his hands up and get on with it. Ridiculous to challenge.0 -
0
-
If he's as innocent as he claims why did the fool feel the need to turn up in court in a dark three piece suit? Hardly his normal attire?0
-
Why has this taken 14 months to come to Court?
So that's 14 months he's still been legally driving awaiting a possible conviction for drink driving.0 -
He's a 'celebrity' darling (albeit a z class one) .. and they just do not live in the real world, rules for thee and me do not apply to them0
- Sponsored links:
-
GUILTY .. 'you shall be taken to a place of execution and hanged by the neck until you are dead' ..0
-
Give him community service.............might cause him to move abroad.0
-
If only he'd stuck to drinking Tango...0
-
Aah, now we know why he was fighting the case! He has previous. Banned for two years in March. So another ban would be very lengthy - turns out three years - and motor insurance would probably become almost impossible to obtain. He was desperately hoping something technical would go wrong with the prosecution presumably?0
-
So was he driving whilst banned as well as whilst drunk? Surely that justifies a prison sentence or have I missed something?0
-
Here's the details:newyorkaddick said:So was he driving whilst banned as well as whilst drunk? Surely that justifies a prison sentence or have I missed something?
He was on bail for this offence when he was stopped again in Tongham in March this year.
This time a roadside breath test found he had 129 microgrammes of alcohol in his blood per 100 mililitres of breath - nearly four times over the legal drink drive limit.
But he failed to provide a second specimen at the station and was banned for two years and fined £2,000 at Guildford Magistrate’s Court earlier this year.
So, he got done first for the second offence, while on bail for the first one - weird.0 -
errr.. does this means that when his first offence finally comes to court again, because he wasn't banned at the time of this second offence, even though ostensibly he is guilty of twice driving whilst well over the limit, he will escape, if not scot free, he will not face the same dire penalties that would apply if he had been banned when he was caught the second time ?cafcfan said:
Here's the details:newyorkaddick said:So was he driving whilst banned as well as whilst drunk? Surely that justifies a prison sentence or have I missed something?
He was on bail for this offence when he was stopped again in Tongham in March this year.
This time a roadside breath test found he had 129 microgrammes of alcohol in his blood per 100 mililitres of breath - nearly four times over the legal drink drive limit.
But he failed to provide a second specimen at the station and was banned for two years and fined £2,000 at Guildford Magistrate’s Court earlier this year.
So, he got done first for the second offence, while on bail for the first one - weird.0 -
disgraceful decision.0
-
It probably means that when the last conviction goes to court he will get a short custodial sentence.0
-
My word!0
