Failed breath test 1 hour later
Discussion
This has happened to a guy who I work with.
On the way back from lunch he rolled his Merc, he freely admits it was his fault as he went to quickly around a bend near his folks house. At lunch he had one glass of wine and has several witnesses who can vouch for this. As no one was hurt he walked to his parents and called a tow truck. As he was at home and no longer had to go anywhere he head a couple of drinks. An hour later he saw flashing lights by the car so he walked up to have a chat with the police who then breathalysed him and he scored 50mg's and failed. They have taken the bottle he drank from as evidence and he has been bailed, they have not yet said what they are going to do. Any advice or names of any good lawyers?. It will be a major pain if he gets banned.
On the way back from lunch he rolled his Merc, he freely admits it was his fault as he went to quickly around a bend near his folks house. At lunch he had one glass of wine and has several witnesses who can vouch for this. As no one was hurt he walked to his parents and called a tow truck. As he was at home and no longer had to go anywhere he head a couple of drinks. An hour later he saw flashing lights by the car so he walked up to have a chat with the police who then breathalysed him and he scored 50mg's and failed. They have taken the bottle he drank from as evidence and he has been bailed, they have not yet said what they are going to do. Any advice or names of any good lawyers?. It will be a major pain if he gets banned.
alans said:
IMHO I don't see how that would stand up in court, his defence would be he drank AFTER the accident, to calm his nerves etc.
How about 'leaving the scene of an accident'? Do you have to wait by the car even when it was a single vehicle accident, no one hurt etc? If not, then I agree, he should be OK. However, whats to stop every drunk driver (not that I'm saying he was) staggering to the nearest pub and ordering a pint of whisky when they crash?
If no-one was hurt then it's not a reportable accident. As long as he took reasonable steps to contact the ownder of any damaged property then no problem either. BiB had the right to take a breath sample, but they will have had to interview him about post accident consumption - it involves soing through a tick sheet of what you've eaten / drunk etc etc. The bottle will be sent off to a lab for back-calculation. Which force was he in as some prosecute at 35 and some at 40. Also if he blew exactly 50 ( The lowest of the two ) He must have been given the option of swapping the breath sample with one of ( usually ) blood
IIRC If a 3rd party's property is damaged as long as it is reported within 24 hours at a police station you are not obliged to remain at the scene of an accident.
if there is no 3rd party damage there is no obligation to report it.
therefore I cant see him having commited a crime by leaving the scene. He should be able to prove he drank after he crashed and I couldnt see it holding up in court (weather the CPS monkeys decide to take it that far is another matter)
if there is no 3rd party damage there is no obligation to report it.
therefore I cant see him having commited a crime by leaving the scene. He should be able to prove he drank after he crashed and I couldnt see it holding up in court (weather the CPS monkeys decide to take it that far is another matter)
Damage only - rta has to be reported as soon as practicable, and in any case, within 24hrs.
I very much doubt if he will get reported for leaving the scene.
The defence of going home and drinking alcohol to 'calm your nerves' is a very well tried and tested formula, and sometimes it works, depending on particular circumstances, sometimes it doesn't.
I very much doubt if he will get reported for leaving the scene.
The defence of going home and drinking alcohol to 'calm your nerves' is a very well tried and tested formula, and sometimes it works, depending on particular circumstances, sometimes it doesn't.
There was no third party damage,I don't think they are going for careless driving either. My guess is they will have a chat with the landlord of the pub where he had lunch and if he confirms that he wasn't lashed they will let it go, surley doing a back calculation is very innacurate as peoples tolerances must vary hugely.
There was no third party damage,I don't think they are going for careless driving either. My guess is they will have a chat with the landlord of the pub where he had lunch and if he confirms that he wasn't lashed they will let it go, surley doing a back calculation is very innacurate as peoples tolerances must vary hugely.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff