Digitalis
I mentioned this point earier in the thread - it puzzles me too.
I've read every Press report of the court proceedings I can find on the net and can't find any mention of the prosecutor telling the court what test(s) were carried out, in what respect and/or to what extent the pilot is said to have failed such test(s) etc.
Given that the prosecutor called the arresting officer to give evidence of the circumstances of the arrest, and even added (for some reason) the wholly irrelevant fact that he had not encountered any similar case in all of his six (!) years working for the airport authority, it seems curious that he apparently made no mention of any intoxication tests. I say 'apparently'; if he had, I'm certain that aspect would have been reported.
Nor, apparently, was there any mention of waiting for the results of blood or urine samples being the reason for the long delay before the next hearing.
However, it also appears the defence attorney said nothing about these aspects.
In those circumstances, it may be there is more evidence upon which the prosecutor relies than the 'subjective opinion and suspicion of one security official and one policeman' even though it's challenged by the defence as being incorrect.
If there are flaws/weaknesses in the prosecution evidence, it is usually tactically better to keep powder dry for when the case is heard properly - yesterday was a formal hearing.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 24th Dec 2003 at 01:29.