Safe Speed Forums

Edit: This isn't the story MalcolmW has just posted

Found this on another forum I frequent, obviously I can't vouch for it's authenticity, but I was wondering what our resident BIB would make of this

http://www.sxoc.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=381938



Any thoughts on this, is it yet another case of another crime "solved" on the stats and 4 or so more people alienated from the police, or is there likely more to it than meets the eye?

I don't know if there is more to it than meets the eye, but I have been arrested for failing to provide on my own doorstep even though the officer knew full well the car wasn't capable of going anywhere.

About 3 years ago now (maybe slightly longer), our family car was damaged outside our house by a hit & run driver to the point where the only way it could be moved was if the front wheels were lifted clear of the ground.
I had been on the booze since mid-day and this occured around 9:30pm.
The police were duly called as my neighbours witnessed the whole incident. During the course of the officer taking notes, one of my neighbours stated that 2 men she witnessed entering a house over the road (teenage party in progress) were passengers in the vehicle that hit our car.

I eventually asked the officer if he was going to do anything, and his response was "I'm sorry sir, there isn't enough evidence"

My initial response to that was "Are you taking the pi$$?"
When it became apparent that this cretin was being serious, I told him that he was "about as much use as a chocolate ashtray, and that he might as well f*ck off and I'll deal with it myself"

He duly disappeared, and I went over the road.......

Fast forward 30 minutes, and there is already one trappy teenager who has learnt it is not a good idea to upset somebody who is extremely pi$$ed off, and who has consumed far more alcohol in 10 hours than what is recommended in a month.

Plod turns up again (same copper), knocks on my door, and starts spouting some crap about he believes I have been driving and he requires me to take a breath test. I laughed in his face, told him to leave before he got some of the same as the trappy teenager, and then slammed the door in his face.

He then started shouting through the letterbox that failure to provide was an offence, etc, etc.
Numerous more plod arrive (3 riot vans full of them), and after a bit of arguing through the front door (and another quarter bottle of vodka & some class A's inside me), I once again open the door and tell him to stick his breathalyser up his rectum.

The inevitable obviously happened, and I was led to a waiting police car through a crowd of very angry neighbours who demanded to know why I was being arrested when I was the victim.

I was transported to Aldershot police station where I was fed coffee for around an hour before being put on the Lion Intoximeter where my lowest reading was recorded at 147.
I was then given numerous cups of coffee again (one after the other almost) until around 3:30am when I was bailed to return in 2 weeks.

One week after my arrest, I received the "standard" letter informing me that no action was being taken and that I was also being informed of my obligation to comply with the law.

It turned out (after speaking to two neighbours who are on the council) that my arrest was nothing more than the "easy" option in an attempt to quell any trouble (they were $hit scared to nick the two kids in other words).


So yes, it is an offence to refuse a breathalyser...although I guess I got lucky that night as I had two councillors making lots of noise on my behalf.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

IMHO,
Why should drunk passengers who have not and are under no suspicion of ever having committed any driving offenses whatsoever be persecuted or prosecuted for refusing to provide a breath sample? Then again, arrogance is only a proxy of suspicion for the arrogant and their employers ...

Now everyone in the car has to be sober? Even if one of the passengers is the owner, if they have no suspicion of him driving, what perverse legal fabrication would compel him to provide a breath sample, or punish him for not providing one?

Vaughn's mate would have been OK if the officer[s] who cited him weren't behaving megalomaniacally.
Or, Vaughn's mate would have been OK if the law wasn't maliciously designed, to be wielded against anyone for any reason.

Where neither the letter of the law nor its enforcers serve the reasonable adult majority, the reasonable adult majority is in serious danger from the unreasonable.

Having read the third page of the thread on sxoc.com, I have little else to say.

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation

Sounds like a load of old tosh to me....from the Road Traffic Act 1988

"Breath tests (1) Where a constable in uniform has reasonable cause to suspect—
(a) that a person driving or attempting to drive or in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place has alcohol in his body or has committed a traffic offence whilst the vehicle was in motion, or
(b) that a person has been driving or attempting to drive or been in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place with alcohol in his body and that that person still has alcohol in his body, or
(c) that a person has been driving or attempting to drive or been in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place and has committed a traffic offence whilst the vehicle was in motion,
he may, subject to section 9 of this Act, require him to provide a specimen of breath for a breath test.
(2) 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 the vehicle at the time of the accident to provide a specimen of breath for a breath test."

Doesn't say anything about just being a passenger....

_________________
"The Wrong Way Round..."

Taking this to extremes, if the driver gets out of the car and walks 20 yards away, is one of the passengers then "in charge" of the vehicle and liable to be breath tested?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

I suspect this is a rather boneheaded law which our MPs have passed. But at least it specifies a "person", so there is no chance of a dog requiring a breath test.

No it doesn't, but having the passenger is covered by sections B & C of the Act that you posted.
As well as already stated, failing to provide is a completely seperate offence.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

Not so. First of all. there are NO sections "b" or "c" of the RTA 1988 - the act is divided into numbered parts and subsections with lettered paragraphs..

All offences are based on the act of driving or attempting to drive, indicating intent and the Police can only require a sample of breath to be provided on that basis. Someone who is just sitting in the car cannot be compelled to provide a sample unless the police officer has a reasonable belief that they were driving or had formed the intention to drive. In the case of the driver leaving the vehicle with the passenger remaining inside it, this would not be sufficient evidence of the formulation of the intent to drive on the part of the passenger unless they had actually climbed into the driver's seat and were fumbling with the keys and controls.

Failure to provide a sample of breath is an offence under section 6.4 of the Act which is concerned with driving or being in charge and does not, therefore, apply to persons who are purely passive participants in the incident.

To quote the OP "In court we found out the law is that: If a police officer believes that you have, are, or might be the driver of the vehicle, he can demand you have a breathalyser. If you’re sitting in the passenger seat or the back you could be 10 times over the limit and there is nothing they can do, as you have not broken the law. Its refusing the test that is breaking the law."

But the Officer must have formed the opinion that the passenger had been driving or had been attempting to drive . There is thus a requirement to justify this belief to the court in order for the passenger involved to be sanctioned. Without this belief there can be no offence in these circumstances.

NOT the same as being bagged just for sitting in the car.

_________________
"The Wrong Way Round..."

Thanks for the detailed reponse but I am still unclear as to the legal meaning of "in charge" of the vehicle as this is included in the legislative text as well as "driving or attempting to drive". Surely, if the police officer believed someone was "in charge" of the vehicle, he would be within his rights to ask a passenger to take a breath test.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

As you want to be pedantic about it, I said "but having the passenger is covered by sections B & C of the Act that you posted"


Having the keys on your person is enough for a conviction of "drunk in charge", which is a banning offence and it's been that way for a number of years.
Indeed, I still remember the story of one bloke who left the pub (pissed), unlocked his passenger door while the car was still in the car park, grabbed a jacket off the back seat, locked the car up, and got nicked 50 yards up the road, and subsequently lost his license.


Exactly, the copper only has to "believe" that the person was driving, attempted to drive, or was in charge in order to require a breath test in law.
As everything these days is down to the persons "interpretation", theres plenty of scope for the police to convince a court they had reasonable belief.


So are you saying that my arrest 3 years ago for failure to provide was illegal?

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

[/quote] So are you saying that my arrest 3 years ago for failure to provide was illegal?[/quote]

Strangely enough, yes .....if your car couldn't be moved without a breakddown truck, I would imagine they would have had a pretty difficult time in court proving the "driving/attempting to drive" bit.....that's probably why nothing came of it!

As you say, an easy way out of direct confrontation with the herberts who originally damaged your property.

_________________
"The Wrong Way Round..."