Failing to provide - could I have got a lesser sentence if I had refused to blow?

Convicted Driver Insurance

C J 1980

Established Member
Evening everyone

I've created this thread to clarify something that is currently playing on my mind.

Just to summarise my own situation - I was banned from driving on the 27th February last year (2019) for 28 months. This has now been reduced to 21 months after I completed my rehabilitation course in May. If all goes according to plan, I should get my licence back just before Christmas this year (2020). The two readings I gave were 115 & 113 hence why my ban was quite lengthy. As I have said previous I am appalled by my actions and I will never put myself in this situation again.

Last week I ended up chatting with a bloke who I came across on my travels. This bloke is something of a jack-the-lad character and he was banned himself a few years ago for drink driving. He only disclosed his own ban after I told him about how public transport can be so unreliable at times. He told he got a 2 year (24 month) ban a few years ago, which he has now served and he is back on the road. He told me he refused to provide at the time of his arrest and because he hates the police he had no intention of co-operating with them and making their job easier. He said he knew he was well over the limit after foolishly getting behind the wheel after going out on a evening session with his brother (who was on leave from the army). The bloke stated he had every intention of throwing his hand in at court as he had no intentions of dragging it out - therefore going guilty on his first appearance and getting his punishment.

Clearly, failing to provide would make him a HRO which he acknowledged and stated he did all the medical stuff with the DVLA before getting his licence back. What he said to me was this - ''I knew I was wasted when I got nicked and if my reading was over 100 they could have banned me for 2.5 - 3 years! By failing to provide they cannot prove how over the limit I was and therefore I took my chances and got 24 months!''

My whole point to all this and my reason for creating this thread in the first place was - if I had done the same thing as this bloke - could I have got a 24 month ban instead of the 28 month one I am presently serving?

I've put this bloke's name through the Internet search engine and I can't find anything with his name attached (historic newspaper reports) that confirms whether what he's said to me is truthful. I do feel a little aggrieved that someone who didn't co-operate with the police and was probably just as high over the limit as I was, got a slightly shorter ban because he refused to blow.

Can someone please offer some guidance about this as I'm sure this information cannot be right. I thought magistrates threw the book at you if you failed to provide but if you are at least three times the limit (like I was!) is it just a case of the lesser of two evils?

Regards

CJ
 
I got failure to provide without reasonable excuse but I did one roadside breath 119! And station 109 and failed the other even tho I tried. I should of got 28/36 month to be honest as I crashed my car along a parked car and fence but I think the magistrates were quite in a good mood yesturday! I was 3 x the limit , I got 24 month reduced to 18 month with course and a fine if my solictor wasn’t mitigating maybe it might of been longer
 
Question is Chelsea honestly were you unable to provide another or just in shock as to how much you were over
 
Question is Chelsea honestly were you unable to provide another or just in shock as to how much you were over
I tried to say I had a panick attack that what was said in court but when I was in the station i knew I would be well over so I tried to fail it
 
I refused roadside as stupidly thought you need to speak to solicitor first ( yep stupid due to lack of procedure knowledge )
Blew at police station but second one didn’t record the officer just said for bloods in the court it was reported as mechanical failure and yes I was fully cooperative and didn’t try not to blow
The court sentenced me on blood reading
 
Even i had a Failure to provide (i was so drunk and couldn't remember, the prosecution mentioned this in court). I got 19 months reduced to 15 months with the course, this was due to i had an accident but no one was injured minor damage to the other vehicle. I was categorised as Severity-2 out of 3 levels. So it all depends on the magistrates.
 
Given the comments above, I am yet to see how refusing to provide would not have put me in a much much better position. I was asleep in my car Drunk, in a stationary car When caught, No damage to anyone/anything. I co-operated fully, blew at the roadside, and blew 2 admissible tests at the police station. 30 month ban, 200 hrs CS, 10 RAR days, 14 week rehab course. it looks like from what everything people are saying, I would have got a much less sentence had I simply refused to comply.
 
Given the comments above, I am yet to see how refusing to provide would not have put me in a much much better position. I was asleep in my car Drunk, in a stationary car When caught, No damage to anyone/anything. I co-operated fully, blew at the roadside, and blew 2 admissible tests at the police station. 30 month ban, 200 hrs CS, 10 RAR days, 14 week rehab course. it looks like from what everything people are saying, I would have got a much less sentence had I simply refused to comply.

It's also down to the district DK I was shitting bricks the regular judges daughter was killed by a DUI driver I kid you not ! Known to throw the book , but on the day it was a stand in judge* however be prepared regardless dress smart have mitigation but without reason look fkn sorry because I did and it wasn't pretence
 
Thanks for the updates on here

This really has been playing on my mind. I'm now just about at the half way point of my ban and the events of last year seem so far away. Drink driving is wrong and I do not condone it - I'm so glad I didn't end up killing someone and no one got hurt or affected by my own actions last February.

Failing to provide seems to me like a bit of a grey area. If you are just slightly over the limit - you've had maybe three pints and you are quite lucid and fully conversant, then co-operating with the police is the best option as you'll simply get a standard ban of 12 months with no additional punishment. This to me is simply a no brainer as if you fail to provide you could be looking at 2 years and go into the HRO category.

However, the goal posts change if your reading is sky high. In my case I was well over the limit - I'd been binge drinking for days and I knew I was 'well oiled' and destined for a lengthy ban because we all know magistrates determine your ban off your reading (and of course anything above 87.5 makes you automatic HRO and involves probation).

If you get caught and you know you are going to be well over the limit - my point is, you are between a rock and a hard place anyway, wouldn't refusing to blow be more in your favour as no one - the police or magistrates can ever prove how much alcohol was in your system?

I got banned for 28 months with a lower reading of 113. A chap in a newspaper article I read recently got 29 months for blowing 121 (unlucky for him - the sentencing guidelines for anything above 120 has to start from 29 months). If either of us had refused to blow we might of got away with maybe two years, like I said before.

Hindsite is a wonderful thing and if I could turn back the clock I would never have got behind the wheel of that car, but on reflection if I knew now what I knew then I probably would have gone for the failing to provide option and taken my chances with the Magistrates.
 
It's a good post but really not one for understanding!

If aware your that blasted over the limit it shouldn't ever come down to how much you can knock off!!?

Example my charge sheet stated clearly failure to provide which was totally wrong and with the right solicitor could of walked away free!
However I knew I fcjd up and deserved punishment so charge sheet was amended 30 mins before court#
I remember sitting listening to a case before me involving harassment which made a huge spread local newspaper plus photo's!

I was stopped exiting a large shopping center middle day count my blessings I got away Scott free 14mth ban blew 87 only point .5 from HRO no press only a 400 pound fine

Some advocate stiffer penalties to deter I disagree that was enough for me.

Stiffer penalties should be served for multiple wrongs
 
Last edited:
Have a look at the post titled "Scotland" that shows the pitfalls of failing to supply. Guy stops at his car just to get his girlfriends coat, arrested for drunk in charge but refuses to supply samples at the station, charged and convicted of failing to supply while drunk in charge.
Here is my reply:
"The problem with the failing to supply is that it doesn't even matter if he could show that he was only getting the coat, he was still in charge of the vehicle. If he had provided the breath samples at the station he could then have argued that there was no likelihood of him driving, but for fail to supply all the police have to prove is that they reasonably suspected him of being in charge... and he failed to supply. "

I have seen other examples where people tried to put forward the "hip flask defence" (I was drinking after I drove) but that cannot be used because the accusation is failing to supply a sample when legally required to. In that respect they have shot themselves in the foot because if a sample had been provided, and they could show that they had been drinking after driving AND it made the difference to them being over the limit they have a valid defence. As it is, even if they had only been drinking after driving, they are still convicted of failing to supply.

The other time you can come unstuck by failing to supply is when you have not actually been seen driving, but the police reasonably suspect that you were the driver. That gives them the power to put you through the drink drive procedure and require a breath test. If you are over, the police have to prove in court "beyond reasonable doubt" that you were the driver which, without an admission from you, they may not be able to prove. BUT, if you fail to supply, the fact that they reasonably BELIEVED that you were the driver, and you failed to supply, is enough for a conviction for failing to supply a sample for analysis.

All in all, if you are going to plan what you are going to do for the best if caught drink driving, it is better to plan how you are going to get home WITHOUT driving!
 
If you get a 12 month ban could you be offered a course or is it only offered to people with a higher ban
 
So long as the ban is for 12 months or more, you are eligible for the course (if it is offered) so the only time it would not be available would be if someone got a 6 month ban for “in charge”.
 
So long as the ban is for 12 months or more, you are eligible for the course (if it is offered) so the only time it would not be available would be if someone got a 6 month ban for “in charge”.
Which is the most severe dr 40 /dr 60 or dr 70
 
Dr40 and DR60 are on a par really. Both carry a ban OR 10 points.
DR70 is certainly the lesser of the three. It is for failing to provide a roadside breath test And carries only 4 points and no ban - unless of course it takes you to 12 points and “totting up“ comes into play.
There are not many prosecutions for the fail to provide a roadside test, because if you fail at the station as well it carries a 12 month + ban anyway. if you are over then you face a 12 month + ban, and if you pass at the police station, the police would only prosecute on the technicality that you failed to provide a the roadside if you had failed the attitude test and they wanted to get you for something......
 
Enter code DRINKDRIVING10 during checkout for 10% off
Top