A colleague's husband had a crash in the last few days (met someone overtaking on a blind bend) and both drivers have been hospitalised. He's got a mashed foot (two ops down, one to go), broken ribs and cut head and probably wont be leaving there for a while.
I'm not looking for a discussion of the accident itself. I have spoken with the Moderators and since legal action is probable, any discussion of the incident will be deleted.
First Question: Police attended and he's been told that he has to show his license etc (presumably given a standard producer) as part of the investigation. As he's not going to be out of hospital in the stated seven days, what's the story on this? Can his wife bring them in? Will the seven days be extended until he's out?
Second question: The other driver refused a breath test at the scene - don't know if they subsequently took one or opted for a blood test. What's the procedure around that?
A quick search of the archives didn't yield any immediately appropriate info (but was interesting all the same - some very strong opinons in some threads)
Thanks in advance
Chris TD
|
Not sure about the finer details but i believe a refusal to take a breath test is an instant ban, which in my mind would give any prosecution a fairly strong footing for guilt. Might be wrong but thats what i think.
|
Chris
Sorry to hear of this tale. I hope your friend makes a full and speedy recovery.
First question.
His wife or someone else may present the documents at the station. Whoever presents the docs should explain the circumstances. I would imagine that the response would be fairly sympathetic.
second question
Phoenicks is along the right lines. A refusal to give a breath test can carry the same weight as a failure. If there was no reasonable excuse, then he may be prosecuted for that, and yes P is right - he would almost cetainly face a ban.
H
|
|
|
|
Hi Chris,
SECTION 6(2) ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1988 (amongst other things states in relation to procedures following an accident)
If an accident occurs owing to the presence of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, a constable may, subject to section 9 of this Act, require any person who he has reasonable cause to believe was driving or attempting to drive or in charge of a vehicle at the time of the accident to provide a specimen for a breath test.
In addition, Chris, breath specimens after an accident may be taken at or near the place where the requirement is made or, if the officer making the requirement thinks fit, at a police station specified by the officer.
Now I do not know if the request was carried out at the ?roadside? officially or at the hospital, but initial refusal may have been due to it impracticality because of its interference with ambulance staff rendering aid. It may be that the officer decided to allow the driver time for assessment at the hospital, and then seek the permission of the medical practitioner in charge of the case at the hospital to commence a screening test there.
In either case, however there is an offence of
FAILING TO PROVIDE BREATH SPECIMEN FOR PRELIMINARY TEST.
Road Traffic Act 1988. S.6(4)
A person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to provide a specimen of breath when required to do so in pursuance of this section is guilty of an offence.
The question would then fall on the reasonable excuse. This would normally be due to medical reason. i.e. providing a sample would entail substantial risk to the driver health.
Remember to that the details surrounding your friends RTC suggest a straightforward roadside refusal. It would be interesting to know if the other driver showed signs of intoxication or being unfit through drink.
The offence of failing to provide the screening test is triable summary only (magistrates court) fine, with discretionary disqualification.
If the driver had provided a positive screening test, he would normally have been arrested. Alternatively, refused to provide and the officer suspected intoxication arrested. Once arrested they are required to provide substantive breath tests at the police station. Now refusal without a reasonable cause here if charged would lead to minimum 12 months disqualification.
Confused! Sorry but I was in a rush..
|
|
If he's had a producer then the answer has already been given. If he was too smashed up to have had one the process is quite forgiving. The reporting Officer will, no doubt, visit him to take a statement and will check his docs at the same time - or if his Force is one that sends out Pro-Forma Statements a covering letter will usually ask for docs to be produced. I would imagine that he will be seen to record a statement and the former line will be taken (in view of the seriousness of the accident.) As regards the tubing of the other driver it depends on a number of things. If he was injured and in hospital - the Police will adopt the so called hospital proceadure, if he refused they will have to suspect intoxication to dictate wha will happen then, they are entitled to request if he refuses with reasonable excuse he can be prosecuted by way of summons (if they don't suspect impairment) or nick him (if they do). Assuming the latter, he is then obliged to provide samples (which depend on where he is when asked breath/blood or urine) if he refuses these he can be charged and there is a statutory disqualification. Hope this clears it up for you.
|
Thanks to all for your contributions. My colleague was much impressed by the info that the Backroom could come up with, and she's a lot less stressed now.
Chris TD
|
|
|
|
![2023 Polestar 2 300kW 78kWh Long Range DM [Plus] 5dr 4WD Auto](http://images.honestjohn.co.uk/imagecache/url/crop/90x60/https/assets.heycar.co.uk/t_default-export/f_auto/application_assets/vehicles/pictures/f5b87617f872118e8584f0a069e15245/863c9f2b09f538224f51d6b9cf98515f.jpg)
