Crash, car taken without permission, no insurance/licence
Discussion
Hi, asking the below on behalf of a relative (no, really).
He’s taken his partners car in the night without permission, he’s not insured, has a provisional licence, and has managed to roll the car into a field.
The 2 rear passengers are injured with cuts/bruises and a concussion, nothing majorly serious at this stage it seems. No front passenger.
The car is a complete write off of course and of low value.
To keep the insurance valid, his partner has said he took the car without permission, which is true.
I’ve advised him to take legal advice before doing anything. Of course the entire situation is terrible and he’s been stupid. That goes without saying.
Can anyone advise what may happen next, there could be mitigating circumstances relating to mental health (tablets etc), but I’m not sure. The police didn’t say too much as far as I know but I assume they’ll be paying a visit to them soon?
He’s taken his partners car in the night without permission, he’s not insured, has a provisional licence, and has managed to roll the car into a field.
The 2 rear passengers are injured with cuts/bruises and a concussion, nothing majorly serious at this stage it seems. No front passenger.
The car is a complete write off of course and of low value.
To keep the insurance valid, his partner has said he took the car without permission, which is true.
I’ve advised him to take legal advice before doing anything. Of course the entire situation is terrible and he’s been stupid. That goes without saying.
Can anyone advise what may happen next, there could be mitigating circumstances relating to mental health (tablets etc), but I’m not sure. The police didn’t say too much as far as I know but I assume they’ll be paying a visit to them soon?
NMNeil said:
Why would your relative need legal advice?
He/she has committed no crime but is the victim of a crime, so a police report may be in order. Something like "My car was taken without my consent". No need to elaborate or mention mitigating circumstances, that's something the person who took the car will have to deal with, not your relative.
My relative is the one who took his partners car and crashed it!He/she has committed no crime but is the victim of a crime, so a police report may be in order. Something like "My car was taken without my consent". No need to elaborate or mention mitigating circumstances, that's something the person who took the car will have to deal with, not your relative.
Thank you for all of the replies. I suppose he’s just going to have to wait and see what the police say/charge him with, as well as what the insurers view is - if they pursue him for any damages, and the passengers too.
The passengers would have known the situation (lack of insurance/licence etc) but can easily deny it.
The passengers would have known the situation (lack of insurance/licence etc) but can easily deny it.
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!
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
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).
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.
nordboy said:
Sounds 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?
I will do, I have no idea how it's going to go for him, there's so much conflicting information.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?
I've watched enough of Road Wars etc to know that even some very serious traffic related crimes don't seem to get harsh punishments - it's often frustrating!
I would add that, and I am in no way defending anything - he's not some typical scrote that many will be picturing, it's really just a case of doing something sensationally stupid and committing multiple offences at once.
A shock to the system would certainly serve a purpose here.
Update!
So the details were:
4x over the drink drive limit ~
Provisional licence
No insurance
Vehicle taken without consent and crashed, 2 passengers with minor injuries
--
He entered a guilty plea.
8 week custodial sentence, suspended for 12 months.
Total of a £200~ fine/costs.
3 year driving ban.
--
Make your own judgements, I think he was very fortunate.
So the details were:
4x over the drink drive limit ~
Provisional licence
No insurance
Vehicle taken without consent and crashed, 2 passengers with minor injuries
--
He entered a guilty plea.
8 week custodial sentence, suspended for 12 months.
Total of a £200~ fine/costs.
3 year driving ban.
--
Make your own judgements, I think he was very fortunate.
ConnectionError said:
I guess he also has a car that needs paying for,
Was it on finance?
Wasn't his car, was low value. Partner has just replaced it with another cheap car.Was it on finance?
Alex Z said:
A subsequent conviction would mean driving while disqualified which normally means a bigger fine and likelihood of jail.
But then so does all the stupid s
t that happened this time….
He was very lucky indeed. Is he now single?
Nope... don't ask!But then so does all the stupid s
t that happened this time….He was very lucky indeed. Is he now single?
Aretnap said:
A suspended sentence nearly always comes with some form of community order - eg unpaid work, a curfew and an electronic tag, compulsory alcohol rehabilitation, or a combination thereof. Did you miss that part out, or was there some unusual reason why it wasn't imposed?
Unfortunately I don't have every detail, I think there's an optional drink driving/alcohol course (for £250), which reduces the ban by 25%.Not really a punishment, given the ban reduction!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff