Drunk driver doing a runner from an accident

[scrw.]

So my Jeep and a few other cars were totalled over the weekend by a drunk driver who then legged it and evaded the police for a day or so, only to call them when all sobered up (that's the concise version).

What will the likely punishment be for this? he would have failed the breath test, was slurring words etc, but is now apparently stating "he fell asleep" rather than was drunk. Do the courts assume the worst if someone does a runner from the scene or is it a good way to avoid losing your licence if drunk??

ta

[Petrus1983]

No proof. Can't see anything happening. Fleeing an accident at worst.

[Pica-Pica]

To my mind, legging it from an accident would sit higher than ‘failing to provide a breath test’; basically you would do the first to avoid the second (or you are just a moral coward). Experts will be along to give samples of real-life cases.

[toon10]

I witnessed this one last year. The guy was detained by motorists until the police arrived.

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-ne...

He got a 12-month community order was made to do 160 hours of unpaid work.

[Dog Star]

Probably nothing; there is no proof whatsoever that he was drunk, and if he’s gone to the police within 24 hours then he’s done nothing (legally) wrong there.

Annoying.

Edited by Dog Star on Thursday 11th April 17:45

[lord trumpton]

How do you know he was drunk out of interest?

[megaphone]

lord trumpton said:

How do you know he was drunk out of interest?

I was asking the same question.

[scrw.]

Stunk of booze, was seen drinking in a local pub for a few hours before the crash, slurring words, I am sure a good lawyer would have the latter as a bang on the head though. (un)Fortunately the CCTV system in the pub he was drinking in has been sent away to be repaired, I understand the police asked to see it.

[martinbiz]

Dog Star said:

Probably nothing; there is no proof whatsoever that he was drunk, and if he’s gone to the police within 24 hours then he’s done nothing (legally) wrong there.

Annoying.

Edited by Dog Star on Thursday 11th April 17:45

Incorrect, it is a legal requirement to stop and exhange details at the scene as soon as it is safe to do so. The fallback of reporting within 24hrs is if you were unable to stop for a valid reason or it was unsafe to do so. It is'nt an option you can choose to do

Text from the Met website below.

"You must report the collision to the police if you were unable to exchange details at the scene, if anyone was injured, or if you suspect that the other person may have committed a driving offence".

[Pica-Pica]

toon10 said:

I witnessed this one last year. The guy was detained by motorists until the police arrived.

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-ne...

He got a 12-month community order was made to do 160 hours of unpaid work.

Nice to read it’s not only PHers who seem to think it is a ‘duel’ carriageway.

[Aretnap]

martinbiz said:

Incorrect, it is a legal requirement to stop and exhange details at the scene as soon as it is safe to do so. The fallback of reporting within 24hrs is if you were unable to stop for a valid reason or it was unsafe to do so. It is'nt an option you can choose to do

Or if there was nobody to give your details to, for example if you hit a parked car and the owner was nowhere to be found.

Also note that the requirement in that case is actually to report to the police AS SOON AS POSSIBLE and in any event within 24 hours - that doesn't mean that you're allowed to go home, put your feet up and wait 23 and a half hours to report it. I don't think that being too drunk to report it the same evening would be accepted as a valid reason for waiting until the next day.

That said while the driver clearly committed an offence of failure to stop, how interested the police will be in pursuing it is a different question. Normally if it's reported promptly there would be a good chance that they would let the original failure to stop slide, perhaps they will take a stricter view of there is good reason to suspect that he fled the scene too avoid a breath test.

[Griffith4ever]

Failing to stop at the scene of an accident and careless driving / Dwdca.

Bit like better to ask forgiveness than permission.

[scrw.]

I should add the police are well aware he was steaming, they were searching for him for a few hours with a dog & drone team but he was hiding up somewhere in a mates house we think. Will go into full details after any court case if it gets that far.

[Griffith4ever]

You can't do someone for drunk driving if you can't prove they were drunk at the time.

[Aretnap]

Sentencing guidelines for failure to stop are here

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magi...

The fact that he would have been breathalysed had he stopped is indeed treated as an aggravating factor. Reasonable chance of a significant ban and possibly a community order. Prison unlikely without serious injury, but then it would also have been unlikely had he stopped and blown over the limit.

[fourstardan]

I think getting this sort of tosser off the Road would be enough punishment.

Why do CCTV's never work or be there when you need them.

[iDrive]

scrw. said:

I should add the police are well aware he was steaming, they were searching for him for a few hours with a dog & drone team but he was hiding up somewhere in a mates house we think. Will go into full details after any court case if it gets that far.

Its a small point, but in a sea of "the Police won't be interested" type posts, they generally are very interested in catching offenders - In this case there is also the possibility that the driver could have been seriously injured. The seeking CCTV suggests some investigation has taken place.

Griffith4ever said:

You can't do someone for drunk driving if you can't prove they were drunk at the time.

There is limited awareness of the different offences of being "Over the Prescribed Limit" vs being "Unfit through drink/drugs" - for the latter offence you can be *under* the drink drive limit, but the manner of your driving is the evidence, and street cctv, the collision, witness evidence etc can be used to prove

Whatever the result of the investigation, you can expect that the Police will seek him out in future too - Drink Drivers are rarely one-off offenders, no matter how many times they might protest such, they are habitual risk-takers - The Police will most likely look at other vehicles, replacement vehicle, driving habits, employment and where he might be caught in future - It can take months, but they "get lucky" with surprising regularity, just happening to be in the right place at the right time.

[Griffith4ever]

iDrive said:

There is limited awareness of the different offences of being "Over the Prescribed Limit" vs being "Unfit through drink/drugs" - for the latter offence you can be *under* the drink drive limit, but the manner of your driving is the evidence, and street cctv, the collision, witness evidence etc can be used to prove

Whatever the result of the investigation, you can expect that the Police will seek him out in future too - Drink Drivers are rarely one-off offenders, no matter how many times they might protest such, they are habitual risk-takers - The Police will most likely look at other vehicles, replacement vehicle, driving habits, employment and where he might be caught in future - It can take months, but they "get lucky" with surprising regularity, just happening to be in the right place at the right time.

You assume the police have a lot of time to focus on a single drunk driver, and I assume you are way off the mark :-)

[iDrive]

Griffith4ever said:

You assume the police have a lot of time to focus on a single drunk driver, and I assume you are way off the mark :-)

The resources that they put into it at the time show the commitment, whilst the standard call is for "More Police on the beat", its often Analysts and the Staff in intelligence functions who do the investigative leg-work in incidents such as this.

Daily, they put the time and effort into catching these offenders.

[Kaelic]

iDrive said:

scrw. said:

I should add the police are well aware he was steaming, they were searching for him for a few hours with a dog & drone team but he was hiding up somewhere in a mates house we think. Will go into full details after any court case if it gets that far.

Its a small point, but in a sea of "the Police won't be interested" type posts, they generally are very interested in catching offenders - In this case there is also the possibility that the driver could have been seriously injured. The seeking CCTV suggests some investigation has taken place.

Griffith4ever said:

You can't do someone for drunk driving if you can't prove they were drunk at the time.

There is limited awareness of the different offences of being "Over the Prescribed Limit" vs being "Unfit through drink/drugs" - for the latter offence you can be *under* the drink drive limit, but the manner of your driving is the evidence, and street cctv, the collision, witness evidence etc can be used to prove

Whatever the result of the investigation, you can expect that the Police will seek him out in future too - Drink Drivers are rarely one-off offenders, no matter how many times they might protest such, they are habitual risk-takers - The Police will most likely look at other vehicles, replacement vehicle, driving habits, employment and where he might be caught in future - It can take months, but they "get lucky" with surprising regularity, just happening to be in the right place at the right time.

Just to reinforce this I literally stalked a local drink driver who we had a heap of intel on and was known as a habitual drink driver, when I was on patrol nearby, always do a drive by on Nights if I could, then one night a few weeks in I drove down his road and a car was heading towards me in the opposite direction, hey presto it was him, stopped him and he blew in the 70's, he ended up getting banned. A few months later I was doing another drive by as a (different) car was parking up and our chap got out of the driving seat, had seen him drive round a bend and park up, so breathalysed him again and in the 90's and locked him up again, he stated he was driving his neighbours car as he had sold his. He is a scum ball habitual drunk driver who was too busy trying to guilt me into letting him go each time. I just wish he would get a custodial for the constant drink driving, as I am sure he wont give it up.