Failing to provide
Discussion
Opinions please
Wife’s colleague’s brother wrote his sisters (wife’s colleague) car off, possibly traveling to fast into a roundabout; suffice to say that any part lower than the chassis was removed.
Police arrived, asked if he had been drinking to which he replied he had not. They asked for a breath test which was provided and proved negative.
He was asked to go to the local station where the police told him they required another breath test. He tempted to give the test but complained that the first had given some pain across his chest (where the seatbelt had tightened during the collision with the roundabout) but attempted it any way. It appears that he was in too much pain to give the second test successfully but offered to give a blood test instead which was refused as this was a “tactic” used to stall.
In the magistrates he was convicted of failing to provide, banned for 18mths and fined (not much, £40 we believe)
I have no personal interest, and no axe to grind but this seems somewhat harsh, the question is if he did offer a blood test as he felt too much pain to give a breath test should he be convicted, and if any resident BiB’s would like to offer their view (Is this a realistic scenario or is he, perhaps, making it up?) it would be appreciated.
Cheers
Paul
Wife’s colleague’s brother wrote his sisters (wife’s colleague) car off, possibly traveling to fast into a roundabout; suffice to say that any part lower than the chassis was removed.
Police arrived, asked if he had been drinking to which he replied he had not. They asked for a breath test which was provided and proved negative.
He was asked to go to the local station where the police told him they required another breath test. He tempted to give the test but complained that the first had given some pain across his chest (where the seatbelt had tightened during the collision with the roundabout) but attempted it any way. It appears that he was in too much pain to give the second test successfully but offered to give a blood test instead which was refused as this was a “tactic” used to stall.
In the magistrates he was convicted of failing to provide, banned for 18mths and fined (not much, £40 we believe)
I have no personal interest, and no axe to grind but this seems somewhat harsh, the question is if he did offer a blood test as he felt too much pain to give a breath test should he be convicted, and if any resident BiB’s would like to offer their view (Is this a realistic scenario or is he, perhaps, making it up?) it would be appreciated.
Cheers
Paul
Gopher,
If he provided a negative breath test at the scene of the accident, he COULD NOT be required to give another sample of breath. He would also not be asked to attend the Police Station, and certainly NOT to give another sample.
If he had trouble blowing into the ESD (Electronic Screening Device) at the roadside he might be arrested for 'failing to provide'.
Whatever happened, trust me, he's telling porkies...
>> Edited by Themoss on Thursday 29th July 23:52
This does not ring true at all.
The roadside breath test is a screening device only. It gives you grounds to arrest, get him to the Police station where he will then supply a specimen of breath into the Evidential Breath Machine.
If the roadside test was neggy, he wouldnt have been arrested..............unless they suspected Drugs. In this case, a Dr would have been called and he wouldnt have been put on the EBM.
The roadside breath test is a screening device only. It gives you grounds to arrest, get him to the Police station where he will then supply a specimen of breath into the Evidential Breath Machine.
If the roadside test was neggy, he wouldnt have been arrested..............unless they suspected Drugs. In this case, a Dr would have been called and he wouldnt have been put on the EBM.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff