Crash, car taken without permission, no insurance/licence
Discussion
Countdown said:
The way it's worded in the OP implies that his partner said he took it without permission in order to keep the insurance valid and then the "because it's true" is added almost in hindsight. It seems to be an odd way to phrase things IMO.
To put it another way, if Option 1 was true why would it need to be mentioned?
Just pointing out that his partner didn't know about him taking the car, it was genuinely taken without any consent.To put it another way, if Option 1 was true why would it need to be mentioned?
Anyway, the insurer has been informed of the above.
Still nothing from the Police yet - I'd have thought they would have been round/in contact by now? I think he's hoping it'll go away, which it won't.
Also interesting re: Aggravated TWOC. Sounds like this could be looked at.
One other thing has come to light, he initially blew over the legal limit on the breathalyser, but subsequently passed a blood test (I think) at the hospital. Or that would have been yet another problem!
As has been mentioned, the aggravating factor of the TWOC was that he crashed it, i’d be surprised if it was just a TWOC.
I’m assuming the breath test was a roadside screening device, not a station evidential machine? If he was over on the station machine, it would be a straight charge, probably after being interviewed under caution etc. Also, if he’s had blood taken, it would have probably been at hospital due to injury to himself? A police FME would have attended to take blood, if it was requested by police, eg he was under arrest.
For the blood test, i’d be very surprised (and i’m not sure of the timescale of the rtc) if he’d had the results by now? Whilst he may well have had blood taken at the hospital, they normally take 4-8 weeks to come back.
I do wonder if you are getting all the correct information, seems a bit sketchy with details?
I’m assuming the breath test was a roadside screening device, not a station evidential machine? If he was over on the station machine, it would be a straight charge, probably after being interviewed under caution etc. Also, if he’s had blood taken, it would have probably been at hospital due to injury to himself? A police FME would have attended to take blood, if it was requested by police, eg he was under arrest.
For the blood test, i’d be very surprised (and i’m not sure of the timescale of the rtc) if he’d had the results by now? Whilst he may well have had blood taken at the hospital, they normally take 4-8 weeks to come back.
I do wonder if you are getting all the correct information, seems a bit sketchy with details?
Edited by nordboy on Saturday 26th June 19:54
Edited by nordboy on Saturday 26th June 19:55
This was a mate of mine who did something very similar but gives you an idea of likely outcomes... XXX XXXXXXX pleaded guilty to taking a vehicle without the owner’s consent, drink driving and driving without insurance on March 4. He was given a 12-month community order and was ordered to pay £85 costs and an £85 victim surcharge. He was also banned from driving for 20 months.
The 'victim' later became my mate's best man but that's a story for another day
The 'victim' later became my mate's best man but that's a story for another day
nordboy said:
As has been mentioned, the aggravating factor of the TWOC was that he crashed it, i’d be surprised if it was just a TWOC.
I’m assuming the breath test was a roadside screening device, not a station evidential machine? If he was over on the station machine, it would be a straight charge, probably after being interviewed under caution etc. Also, if he’s had blood taken, it would have probably been at hospital due to injury to himself? A police FME would have attended to take blood, if it was requested by police, eg he was under arrest.
For the blood test, i’d be very surprised (and i’m not sure of the timescale of the rtc) if he’d had the results by now? Whilst he may well have had blood taken at the hospital, they normally take 4-8 weeks to come back.
I do wonder if you are getting all the correct information, seems a bit sketchy with details?
He was breathalysed at the side of the road. Was presumably arrested, and went to hospital with concussion (and a few cuts and bruises) and was consequently tested there - via blood test - which showed he was under the limit. Supposedly!I’m assuming the breath test was a roadside screening device, not a station evidential machine? If he was over on the station machine, it would be a straight charge, probably after being interviewed under caution etc. Also, if he’s had blood taken, it would have probably been at hospital due to injury to himself? A police FME would have attended to take blood, if it was requested by police, eg he was under arrest.
For the blood test, i’d be very surprised (and i’m not sure of the timescale of the rtc) if he’d had the results by now? Whilst he may well have had blood taken at the hospital, they normally take 4-8 weeks to come back.
I do wonder if you are getting all the correct information, seems a bit sketchy with details?
Edited by nordboy on Saturday 26th June 19:54
Edited by nordboy on Saturday 26th June 19:55
ArchEnemy said:
He was breathalysed at the side of the road. Was presumably arrested, and went to hospital with concussion (and a few cuts and bruises) and was consequently tested there - via blood test - which showed he was under the limit. Supposedly!
Ok, so the roadside breath test is normally not for evidential purposes, it’s purely a screening device.Normally, over the limit and the suspect is arrested, normally taken to a station custody unit and required to give an evidential breath test on a HO approved machine.
If the person can’t be taken to a custody unit, injury after rtc is normally why, then if the police require a blood test, they request a FME nurse or doctor attend at the hospital and a hospital blood procedure commenced. One of the samples taken, is sent to a forensic lab to be analysed. The suspect can then be released from custody or later taken to the station to be interviewed.
The blood test sample is then sent away to the forensic lab and tested, the results sent back to the officer. If they’re over the limit, the suspect can then be reported for the offence and court proceedings started. Or re-arrested and charged.
The lab results however, normally take a minimum of 4 weeks to come back from the lab, can be longer, if he only had concussion, I’d be surprised if the hospital needed to check whether alcohol was present, that tends to be done when the person is unconscious and they need to know if that person has alcohol or drugs in their system. And it’s not evidential, and they don’t get accurate evidential levels of alcohol from their tests.
That’s sort of what should happen anyway.
ArchEnemy said:
Countdown said:
The way it's worded in the OP implies that his partner said he took it without permission in order to keep the insurance valid and then the "because it's true" is added almost in hindsight. It seems to be an odd way to phrase things IMO.
To put it another way, if Option 1 was true why would it need to be mentioned?
Just pointing out that his partner didn't know about him taking the car, it was genuinely taken without any consent.To put it another way, if Option 1 was true why would it need to be mentioned?
Anyway, the insurer has been informed of the above.
Still nothing from the Police yet - I'd have thought they would have been round/in contact by now? I think he's hoping it'll go away, which it won't.
Also interesting re: Aggravated TWOC. Sounds like this could be looked at.
One other thing has come to light, he initially blew over the legal limit on the breathalyser, but subsequently passed a blood test (I think) at the hospital. Or that would have been yet another problem!
Just to update you all (thanks again for the replies).
The police have duly been in touch and it turns out - as people mentioned - he couldn't have had an instant blood test result saying he wasn't over the limit, so the opposite was of course true... I assume being massively over the limit will be taken into account? It's one thing making a mistake and being slightly over, it's another thing to be stratospherically over the limit... showing no disregard for the law and public safety.
Court date looms, multiple offences. No legal advice has been sought as yet (bizarrely).
The police have duly been in touch and it turns out - as people mentioned - he couldn't have had an instant blood test result saying he wasn't over the limit, so the opposite was of course true... I assume being massively over the limit will be taken into account? It's one thing making a mistake and being slightly over, it's another thing to be stratospherically over the limit... showing no disregard for the law and public safety.
Court date looms, multiple offences. No legal advice has been sought as yet (bizarrely).
ArchEnemy said:
Just to update you all (thanks again for the replies).
The police have duly been in touch and it turns out - as people mentioned - he couldn't have had an instant blood test result saying he wasn't over the limit, so the opposite was of course true... I assume being massively over the limit will be taken into account? It's one thing making a mistake and being slightly over, it's another thing to be stratospherically over the limit... showing no disregard for the law and public safety.
Court date looms, multiple offences. No legal advice has been sought as yet (bizarrely).
So you're saying that in addition to TWOC, crashing and injuring two passengers, driving without insurance he WAS ALSO "stratospherically over the limit"? The police have duly been in touch and it turns out - as people mentioned - he couldn't have had an instant blood test result saying he wasn't over the limit, so the opposite was of course true... I assume being massively over the limit will be taken into account? It's one thing making a mistake and being slightly over, it's another thing to be stratospherically over the limit... showing no disregard for the law and public safety.
Court date looms, multiple offences. No legal advice has been sought as yet (bizarrely).
Surely he's looking at jail time?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
No need to be sorry!rlg43p said:
So you're saying that in addition to TWOC, crashing and injuring two passengers, driving without insurance he WAS ALSO "stratospherically over the limit"?
Surely he's looking at jail time?
You'd think so, but is that likely? I'm not sure...Surely he's looking at jail time?
And no licence either, or well, provisional.
rlg43p said:
So you're saying that in addition to TWOC, crashing and injuring two passengers, driving without insurance he WAS ALSO "stratospherically over the limit"?
Surely he's looking at jail time?
I would say hopefully he would as he's put passengers and members of the public at risk amongst other things. Surely he's looking at jail time?
However agg TWOC is a summary offence and unless the car is over 5k in damages it will be dealt with at Mags.
Still he'll struggle to get a decent job in the future.
king idiotSounds to me like he’s not very good at taking advice, he’ll probably try and defend himself. If he does, my advice is to plead guilty and then apologise to try and minimise his punishment. Mags can only give minimal sentences.
He’ll probably do the opposite (if he bothers turning up to court?) and play the victim card, which could just piss the magistrates off. They may then decide that he’s guilty, but send it to crown court for sentencing as they can’t impose enough of a sentence. (And i’ve seen this done on MORE than one occasion!).
OP, Would be interested to see how this plays out if you can keep us updated?
He’ll probably do the opposite (if he bothers turning up to court?) and play the victim card, which could just piss the magistrates off. They may then decide that he’s guilty, but send it to crown court for sentencing as they can’t impose enough of a sentence. (And i’ve seen this done on MORE than one occasion!).
OP, Would be interested to see how this plays out if you can keep us updated?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff