Fatal Collision: Breath, Blood and the Tachograph
At 22:40, a lorry and a motorcycle collide at a junction. The motorcyclist, 22, is pronounced dead at the scene. The lorry driver, 41, walks away from the cab, refuses to give a breath sample, and is detained by a member of the public at 22:55; a police officer arrives at 23:10. The driver smells of alcohol and has slurred speech. The officer does not have a breathalyser; the nearest is at the district HQ, 35 minutes away. The driver is taken to hospital at 23:50 for a blood sample, but the medical officer is busy with the deceased's family and the sample is taken at 01:20. The driver is not cautioned; he says, 'I only had two beers at 8.' The lorry's tachograph is not seized. The motorcycle's brake light is broken. A bystander says the lorry ran a red light, but the traffic light camera is not working. The driver's licence shows a prior drink-driving suspension in 2021.
1. What immediate investigative steps were missed, and what can be salvaged?
Read the worked answer
The missed steps are a breath test or proper refusal procedure at the scene, a caution before the 'two beers' remark, seizure of the tachograph, scene photography including the broken brake light and the traffic light, and a prompt blood sample with a documented chain. What can be salvaged: the 01:20 blood sample is still evidence, but the gap from the collision must be explained. Alcohol is eliminated at roughly 0.015% per hour, so the result cannot simply be read back to 22:40 without an expert and a margin of error. The driver's remark should be recorded verbatim as a spontaneous utterance, but its weight is reduced because he was not cautioned. The tachograph should be seized now, before the lorry is released, and the traffic light controller and nearby private CCTV should be checked. The refusal should be documented and, if the law permits, treated as a separate matter.
2. How should the DPP choose between reckless driving causing death and driving under the influence?
Read the worked answer
The charge decision should not rest on the 2021 suspension. Section 41A Road Transport Act 1987 requires proof of reckless driving causing death; the bystander's red-light account, the tachograph, the scene marks and the driver's condition all matter. Section 44 requires proof of driving under the influence; the blood result and the refusal are relevant, but the delay weakens back-calculation. The motorcycle's broken brake light may support contributory negligence but is not a defence to reckless driving. The prior suspension is aggravating only after conviction. The DPP should consider both charges and choose the one the evidence can prove: a DUI charge may be stronger if the blood result is reliable, while s.41A may be stronger if the tachograph and witnesses show speed and a red-light breach.
3. What must the IO do about the blood sample and its chain of custody?
Read the worked answer
The IO must document who drew the sample, at what time, from which arm, the vial number, the seal, the refrigerator temperature and the handover to the chemist. The 01:20 delay and the medical officer's workload should be recorded, not hidden. The driver should be given a proper caution before any further statement, and any request for counsel should be noted. The IO should obtain the hospital's triage log and the deceased's post-mortem report, and should interview the bystander with a sketch and timings. If the sample is challenged, the IO should not take a second sample by force; he should rely on the documented chain and the expert's evidence. The lorry should be preserved for inspection, and the tachograph should be sealed and labelled.