Sorry Razor, I still haven’t figured out how to use quotes but this is in response to your query.
The breathalyzer results (if that’s what was used by the police) do not compromise their right to a fair trial.In fact, they clearly assist that right by a court not having to rely on a police officer giving an ‘opinion’ re intoxication such as slurred speech, disorientation etc. Derby however, appear in my view, to have tried to introduce evidential material, which is prejudicial to the outcome of any trial, not only at pre-trial stage, but into the public domain. This has the effect of potentially contaminating the deciders of fact and leading to the possibility that lawyers for the accused could argue that those accused cannot obtain a fair trial.
That, in my view is irresponsible by Derby. Nonetheless, a plea of guilty remains the most likely outcome you would think.
Also, would Derby have released such a statement if there had of been a fatality? or if the lads hadn’t wrapped the car around a pole but instead simply made it safely home? I doubt it, I would suggest Derby would have said nothing at all in the latter scenario which means their statement is just an empty, face-saving, cynical, PR exercise.
If Keogh was unfortunate enough to have died in the accident then he’d be hailed as a victim of yet another drink driver, the fact that he’s only suffered a career-threatening injury appears to now afford licence to cast him as a drunken, entitled, clown who has potentially thrown it all away with his selfish actions.