Warwickshire Police has missed the deadline to prosecute drink drivers on 16 occasions over a three-year period.

Last week the Local Democracy Reporting Service reported that a drink driver who ploughed a van into parked vehicles in Nuneaton – two of which were pushed into and damaged nearby properties – escaped justice after an email with blood results showing he was over the limit and had drugs in his system was missed by Warwickshire Police.

Summary only offences – those likely to be dealt with by magistrates rather than crown courts and carry less significant sentences and sanctions – have to be charged within six months or the alleged perpetrator is let off.

The force's subsequent response led with the statistic that 98.7 per cent of drink drive cases had been processed "within the statutory time limit of prosecutions" from the start of 2023 until the end of 2025.

When asked for the number of cases this related to, it emerged that 16 of 1,207 cases had missed the deadline for prosecution.

"Numerous failings" were found in Warwickshire Police's handling of the Nuneaton case with the arresting officer, who had moved on to a new role with the force, missing the email while the case progression officer failed to chase the matter or flag it with superiors despite the deadline looming.

The issuing of 'no further action' letters "without rationale", which triggered the complaints and investigation, was also criticised as part of a level of service deemed "not acceptable".

The Local Democracy Reporting Service has requested the month and year, alcohol level and reason for missing the deadline for each of the other 15 cases.

advertisement

Warwickshire Police has also been asked whether 'no further action' letters were sent out in these cases and whether those letters explained that the force had missed the deadline.

The force's communications department advised that these were "best suited as FOI (freedom of information) requests".

When challenged, Warwickshire Police stopped short of directly refusing to respond but repeated that it would be "best suited as FOI", adding that providing the information would "require substantial data acquisition and detailed analysis".

On the Nuneaton case, a Warwickshire Police statement read: "A collision occurred in Nuneaton on April 3, 2024, involving the driver of a Ford Transit van.

"The driver was arrested on suspicion of drink driving, however as the six-month limitation of proceedings for a prosecution had passed, the driver did not face prosecution.

"Due to failing to acknowledge the six-month limitation, a member of staff in the Traffic Processing Unit received reflective practice – defined in the Police Conduct Regulations as 'underperformance or conduct not amounting to misconduct or gross misconduct, which falls short of the expectations of the public and the police service as set out in the Code of Ethics.'

"The member of staff no longer works for the organisation."

Prior to fielding any specific questions on the matter, Warwickshire Police stated "that's all we'll be providing" on the case.

advertisement

Subsequent queries established that the matter was not referred to police complaints watchdog, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), "as the mandatory criteria were not met", and that the arresting officer remains with the force, receiving "reflective practice" but no punitive sanctions at the time.

Asked what wider processes had been put in place to prevent repeats of the Nuneaton case, the response was: "None. This has been deemed an individual shortfall, which has been addressed via the reflective practice process."

That initial statement then concluded with confirmation of the 16 cases in total.

When asked for detail on the reflective practice put in place for the arresting officer, Warwickshire Police described that as "a personal/HR matter (which) is not shared with the public".