Errrr......all that does is prove you sent a text at a certain time. Can you prove you didnt go back out after you sent it?

At the risk of sounding factitous I hope your lawyer is a good one!

Leaving your name and address would indicate the driver was either you or someone you know.

Do they have a description of the driver of the car?

Who are you insured with as some Insurers will exclude damage to your own vehicle and some will also exclude damage to the other vehicle eg they will pursue you for any monies they pay out to other parties if you're convicted of drink driving.

First thoughts on reading this post I agree with the sentiments of others ^^^^ above

BUT, what if the account is true???

One hell of a pickle to get out of and just as difficult for Plod to prove that essential element "drive" No body it seems saw him leave in the vehicle and no admission. Case has to be proved 'beyond any reasonable doubt'

But what if they say "in charge". Again difficulty on both sides.

The fact that the poster is the Reg Keeper of the vehicle cannot be inferrred that he was the driver - more evidence is required of their actual involvement in the driving of the vehicle is required so it was held in the case [R v Collins 1994]

As to whether CPS would run the case on the evidnce obtained by Plod (which we are not privy to) is unknown.

Becuase of the gravity of the offence a session with a Solicitor seems prudent.

dvd

Normally car thieves do not leave notes at the scene. They might be stupid but they are not that stupid.

Driver in this case got home and went to bed before being roused by plod and taken to station a bit later. He still blew 1.75 times the legal limit for alcohol in breath.

Alterntative constructions from a sceptical coppers perspective might involve actions of a driver incapacitated by drink and acting irrationally.

AS : -

My car keys are missing, so they where obviously stolen from my jacket pocket at some time that evening.

??????

dvd

It seems there are a number of open area the points should be invested.

1) The note left at the scene with the OP’s name and address, how would a thief know this

2) The person who gave the note to OP should be identifiable by the other person involved in the RTA.

3) The TXT message could be tracked back to the mobile phone masts and a rough location identified

I suspect without the Police investigation eliminating these points a good solicitor could drive a train though their case. A case must be proven and would need solid fact to back it up.

.1 It was the OP who left the note, in his drunken haze.

2. This the OP does not make clear. I'd have thought the other person giving a description of the driver would clear this up. Maybe they have done, and the person is remarkably similar in appearance to our 'victim' ?

3. Unless in highly urban areas, mobile phone location from masts in not exact.

All the OP can realistically do is to pay for an independent forensic investigator to examine the car, with a view to obtaining any DNA from the 'car thief'.

I'm personally of the opinion that the OP got drunk, drove home, had a crash, left a note, walked the rest of the way home, had a few more drinks, dozed off, and only on waking up have they realised what they've done. 'Lose' the keys, and BINGO, their car was stolen, and someone else was responsible. Who just happened to be there, and just happened to steal their keys, and just happened to have a crash, and just happened to know the address of the person who's keys they had stolen ...

Edited by RobJP on 04/03/2015 at 14:07