Caught drink driving Please advice!!!!

[m.brown3030]

Hello,
Please i need your advice, i was caught drink driving about 4 years ago but when i got the station because my friend wallet was with me i was arrested and fingerprinted then bailed on his name, i was told to appear in court the following week which i didnt attend, after 4 years i was caught drink driving again and failed, i was taken to the station and futher test confirm my breath test as 69, but this time i gave my real name and DOB and fingerprint, and i have been summoned to court which i plan to attend,i am a single parent with 1 son, i need your advice on what to do and what sentence or fines will i be looking at.
Thanks

 

[price1367]

You were fingerprinted the first time, and when these fingerprints from this occasion are put into the system they will be matched up and the police will know you lied 4 years ago.
you say that you did not go to court, but something must have happened as a result of that, and the worse case scenario is that your friend whose name you gave was arrested for failing to appear.
giving a false name to the police is an offence. Giving a false name to the police resulting in someone else facing criminal proceedings is a serious offence.
You say the police had the wrong name because you had your friends wallet in your pocket. That is being economical with the truth..... The police processed you and bailed you to court in that name because you confirmed that you were that person. Because that name belongs to a genuine person, that is perverting the course of justice, obstructing the police, as well as failing to surrender to your bail, AND the original drink drive offence.
I think you could well find yourself being arrested when you appear at court next week, to be taken into custody to be interviewed for those original offences.
Can your friend tell you what the outcome of the first case was for him? What happened as a result of you dropping him in it will have a big bearing on how serious the outcome will be for you now.
In a way, it would suit you to have this current offence dealt with first, because when you are then sentenced for the original drink drive it will not make you a high risk offender, (unless your first reading was over 87 in breath?) because your second conviction will be for an offence that predates your first conviction. That does not count as a second conviction in 10 years.
The ban, however, could be the least of your worries. Perverting the course of justice is a Crown Court matter, and most likely to result in a prison sentence. I think you need to speak to a solicitor ASAP and then contact the Police to arrange to go in and 'confess'. They have your fingerprints for both occasions, so they can prove what you did the first time. It is damage limitation if you make the approach, and it will go better for you in court if you do. Otherwise the police might do a check on you when you are out and about, find you are wanted for failing to appear and then refuse bail after interviewing you for the first offences because they do not believe you would surrender. If you surrender yourself, bail will be much more likely.
so.... Talk to your 'friend'... See a solicitor, see the police.... fast!

 

[bristol.red]

I echo everything what price1367 has said. However I would like to add that years ago the police did not fingerprint or photograph drink drivers, in fact I believe it was NOT classified as a criminal offence. Lots of people use to do what you did and get away with it. Price1367 have you got any idea when the law changed and drink drive did become a criminal offence? Or perhaps it has always been a criminal offence but finger prints were not taken. I know of several people whose old drink drive offences do not appear on there criminal record.

 

[price1367]

Fingerprints can be taken from anyone arrested for a recordable offence. Over the years, the Home Office gradually increased the list of recordable offences, until now almost all offences you can be arrested for are recordable, providing they carry the possibility of imprisonment. Failing to provide a roadside sample, although not an imprisonable offence, IS a recordable offence, for example.
My recollection is that in 2004 the law was changed to say 'arrested for a recordable offence.' Prior to that it was 'if charged with a recordable offence'. This is what led to all the upset about people being arrested, having their fingerprints and DNA taken, and then not even being charged with the offence.... but their fingerprints and DNA being retained because they had been lawfully taken. Before then, they were only taken after enquiries had been made, and the custody officer or CPS were satisfied there was enough evidence to charge a person.
i can't remember when drink drive was made a recordable offence exactly, but i suspect it may have been when the offence was altered from the Road Safety act of 1967 to the Road Traffic act of 1988. Failing to supply an evidential sample was made recordable in 2000, because it had been missed off. The power to make offences recordable ones comes from s27 (4) of The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

 

[bristol.red]

i can't remember when drink drive was made a recordable offence exactly, but i suspect it may have been when the offence was altered from the Road Safety act of 1967 to the Road Traffic act of 1988. Failing to supply an evidential sample was made recordable in 2000, because it had been missed off. The power to make offences recordable ones comes from s27 (4) of The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

Thank you for this. I believe you are right because it was just before 1988 that I last heard of someone getting away with what the original poster has done.

 

[bristol.red]

Failing to provide a roadside sample, although not an imprisonable offence, IS a recordable offence,

So does this mean that if a person knew they were well over the limit, they could refuse to blow in the machine or give blood and the courts do not have the power to give a sentence of custody, regardless of how many previous offences they have?

If this is the case, then even me thinks the law needs changing.

 

[price1367]

No, the offence I mentioned was failing to provide a ROADSIDE breath test. That is not imprisonable. But of course if you are arrested for failing to give a roadside one, and then blow over, or fail to supply an EVIDENTIAL one, that IS imprisonable.

 

[bristol.red]

or fail to supply an EVIDENTIAL one,.

Evidential one!! I am not trying to pick a bone but are there other tests besides breath, blood or perhaps piss that can be offered if a person had a genuine reason why they were unable to offer any of the above?

PS thank you for answering my question.

 

[price1367]

A screening test is any test decreed to be legal by the Secretary of State. This covers breath tests, preliminary impairment tests (walking a white line that can indicate impairment from drink OR drugs) and screening tests for drug use. There are no screening devices approved yet for roadside testing, but it is on the list of screening tests for when there is.
An evidential test is a breath test, or blood or urine sample.
The driver does not get to chose between them. The process starts with a breath test, because if the person is over the drink drive limit there is little point in pursuing the possibility of drugs as well. If they fail the breath test, - charged. (unless the reading is between 40 and 50, where there is the option that must be given for blood or urine. The driver says if he wants the sample, the police chose which it will be, unless, say, the person shows he is a haemophiliac, which would rule out blood)
If they are unable to provide, and they have medical reasons, then the next option is blood or urine.
The medical reason is confirmed by the Police Doctor before he takes the blood.
If the driver blows UNDER the legal limit, but still seems impaired, then they are examined by the Police doctor to see if their condition may be due to a drug. According to the type of drug suspected, this will dictate whether a blood or urine sample is take.
There are no other possibilities other than breath, blood or urine.... so if you are a bad asthmatic haemophiliac, suffering from chronic fluid retention - you have a problem!

 

[bristol.red]

If they are unable to provide, and they have medical reasons, then the next option is blood or urine.
The medical reason is confirmed by the Police Doctor before he takes the blood.

So a person could delay the process till a doctor arrived. Then if the doctor says in his opinion the detainee is capable of giving a breath test would the person still be allowed to give a breath test and if the test was under 50 and the doctor had left, would the same person still be allowed a urine or blood test and delay things even longer? Does a doctor have to witness a urine test?

PS Sorry official poster for going off topic.

 

[price1367]

Doesn't work like that unfortunately. And it is my fault for not wording my answer quite right... But it was 2am! I should have said: "The LACK of medical reason is confirmed by the doctor before he takes the blood sample." If the driver refuses blood for a medical reason, and the doctor says there Is NO medical reason.... the driver is charged with a failure to supply.
A driver refuses to give a breath sample. Simple refusal is an offence and the driver is charged. If the driver is claiming what appears to be a genuine reason, (perhaps backed up by an SOS Talisman) and in the case of asthma, appears to be genuinely trying to provide a sample that can be a valid reason.
The officer then says that the driver is required to provide a further type of sample for analysis, which is of blood, unless for medical reasons the person cannot provide that. (This is also the case where the breath test device in the station is not available or appears to be unreliable)
A doctor is called and if he says the driver is able to provide a blood sample then the driver commits an offence if he does not consent to the sample, and is charged.
If the doctor confirms for medical reasons the driver cannot provide, then blood is not an option and then a urine sample is required. That consists of 2 samples within an hour, and the first one is discarded, with the second one being used as evidence.
IF I ever got to that stage with a driver, putting them in a detention room with a plentiful supply of drinks..... and no toilet, always produced the driver saying he could provide 2 samples!
The offence is failing to provide a sample without reasonable excuse. It is not a reasonable excuse to say "I couldn't do it." It has to be for a valid reason, not just a fact.
To answer your specific queries in the last post, the process is 'one way' after a person fails or refuses to provide or claims what appears to be a valid reason that is accepted, that part is finished.
Blood or perhaps urine are the only way forward. The blood is taken by a doctor, the urine process is police only, not witnessed by the doctor.
I once had a person claim he could not blow into a breath test machine because he had asthma. When he came into custody, he did not mention asthma when asked if he had any medical conditions. (asked of all persons coming into custody) His answer when told he was required to provide a sample was: "Bring that tube near me and I will stick it up your f*****g nose." So he did not even attempt to blow. He was convicted of failing to supply.
A Failing to supply defence will almost inevitably require a medical expert to give evidence on your behalf. Once a reasonable excuse defence has been validly put forward, the prosecution may call a prosecution witness to refute what the defence has said. (or agree of course, they are supposed to be experts there to assist the court) If you lose the case, the costs are all on you, and such experts normally run out at £800 per day each......