20 year old DS has just got a DUI

[Hobsons123]

Can anyone advise what we need to do & the likely outcome of my 20 year old DS's DUI please? DH & I are currently on holiday abroad & have had a call from my parents that he was pulled over by the police in the early hours of the previous night. He was driving his brothers car (that he's not insured on) without the lights on & when they breathalysed & swabbed him he tested positive for marijuana. He was taken to the police station and gave a blood sample. I know he'll get a ban but we're desperately worried about him having a criminal record. He's only just finished university & is graduating next month. Is there anything we should be doing?

Firstly what country do you live in as you mention DUI, which is the US term, in the UK it is drink driving. That is going to change the advice you are given.

Here are the gov.uk guidelines for drug driving, he will also be charged for driving with no insurance.

Penalties for drug driving
If you’re convicted of drug driving you may get:

• a minimum 1 year driving ban
• an unlimited fine
• up to 6 months in prison
• a criminal record

Your driving licence will also show you’ve been convicted for drug driving. This will last for 11 years.

It’s also likely he’ll have to retake his test once his ban is over.

Prison is unlikely, but he’ll definitely get at least a years ban and a fine.

His car insurance going forward for the next 10+ years will be eye wateringly high. Think thousands of pounds a year.

Also likely it’ll appear on any DBS checks he may need in the future.

Drunk driving is a criminal offence so yes, he’ll have a criminal record.

Driving without insurance, whilst still serious isn’t classed as criminal

One other thing to note is, his brother might also get prosecuted if he knowingly let his brother drive his car knowing he had no insurance. If he took it without his brothers consent then he might be charged with case theft.

Id advise you get him a decent solicitor

That's a whole heap of trouble and a very expensive lesson learned (hopefully). Driving without insurance is beyond stupid and he's lucky he didn't hurt anyone or he'd be facing incarceration.

We're in the UK & it was drugs (not drink). He took his brothers car without permission, his own car having a flat tyre. The car he took is actually in my husbands name although belongs to his brother. His brother is only 17 & currently a learner. He has insurance for his own car but not his brothers. We're absolutely furious about the whole thing & have talked to him at length about drink driving but hadn't really considered drug driving. We're worried sick about him having a criminal record when he's just starting out in life.

So he'll be prosecuted for Driving under the influence and driving without insurance. Possibly taking without permission.

How long has he had his licence?

He's looking at a ban for DUI plus another 6 points for no insurance, and if he has his licence under two years, his licence could be revoked and he'll have to retake his test.

Future insurance will be horrendous. A very expensive mistake.

What a monumental twit.

Hopefully he will fess up to you and tell you the truth of why he was stopped and what he said to the police.

Agree with previous poster about consulting a lawyer.

The ramifications of what he's done and having a criminal record will have far-reaching consequences. Travel visas, jobs involving DBS checks, not to mention car insurance companies not wanting to touch him with a bargepole.

He's had his licence for 3.5 years. To be honest, he absolutely deserves to have his licence taken off him & having to pay extortionate insurance in the future. I don't have a problem with that at all. But we're desperately worried about this affecting his future career prospects. He's just finished his degree & now we're wondering if all that was for nothing.

Well i presume it is drug driving not drink driving in this cass

OP, there will be some companies that will reject him on the basis of a recent drug conviction, but he isn't the first person to have a DUI against his name. 30% of men in the UK have a criminal conviction of some kind by the time they are 30.

I doubt he'll be trusted with a company vehicle for a while and he may have to work a bit harder at interview stage. His best approach is, if asked about the conviction, to be completely honest, say it was an idiotic decision, he's learned his lesson and then move on.

I know someone who was charged 4 times with drink driving along with things like dangerous driving, not wearing a seatbelt etc and he never went to prison. He had a criminal record, it was on his pvg / disclosure (Scotland, I think England is a dbs check?) he lost his licence every time and still kept getting employed as a lorry driver!

What type of job is your DS hoping to get? If it one that doesnt require security clearance or a DBS it shouldn't impact his future employability if he doesnt have to disclose it.

However, if he needs a DBS or security clearance then it would negatively impact him for quite some time as it would need to be disclosed and would likely render him unemployable in these fields as they would question his decision making skills and wouldn't be able to trust him.

Depending on what he had been found guilty of, he will need to check for how long he would have to disclose this as different crimes have different lengths of time before they are 'spent' and no longer have to be declared.

I know you are spirralling about this (as would I be), made worse as you are away and cant be there, but he needs to urgently take legal advice and ensure he follows it.

Good luck.

He's not been convicted yet, so technically speaking he would have nothing to disclose until that happens.

Obviously no job that involves driving - so that would also affect travelling to/from a place of work.

If there is no direct question about criminality then I would advise him to keep schtum.

It may appear on his DBS and still not be taken into consideration, depending on the job. Know Heads and staff with offences that are not relevant to working with children or were a one-off when they were younger.

The drugs are an issue, but it depends on the circumstances and if it appears as a blip on his DBS or if he continues to offend. Different employees have different guidelines. Sometimes people need a good wake-up call to decide to change their ways, sorry.

Where is this stat from?

It was in a Law Society article a while back. I've just searched now and can only find that 25% of the population have a criminal conviction. I think the figure for women was about 9 or 10%

For driving whilst under the influence of drugs, assuming marijuana is the only drug they found and there was no alcohol, this will be a category 2 or category 3 offence depending on how much it was affecting his driving. The minimum he will get is a fine and 12 months disqualification, the maximum is a high level community order and 28 months disqualification. Where it will fall within this range depends on which category the offence falls into and any aggravating and mitigating factors present.

If he is also prosecuted for driving without insurance, assuming he wasn't involved in an accident, he can expect a fine and 6-8 points.

I'm assuming his brother won't report him for taking the car without consent. If he does, that will add to the penalty.

Pleading guilty at the earliest opportunity and showing remorse will help to minimise the sentence. You may want to consider employing a solicitor to plead mitigation for him.

If he is convicted, these offences will appear on any DBS checks for 11 years. However, an employer should only refuse to employ him if the offences are relevant to the job. If the offences are not relevant, an employer would be breaking the law if they refused to employ him. I'm sure some employers do break the law in this regard, but many understand the rules and comply with them.

If a role does not require a DBS check, he will only have to disclose these offences if specifically asked. Contrary to what is said by another poster, this does not depend on the offence. It depends on the sentence. A disqualification is spent when the disqualification is over. A community service is spent when the period of community service is over or, if the order does not specify an end date, 2 years from the date of conviction. As with DBS checks, an employer can only legally refuse to employ him on the basis of these offences if they are relevant to the job.

You can find some figures at Key facts - Unlock. These are from 2006. The links on that page don't work - they used to go to the government statistics from which these figures were drawn.

He's just finished his degree & now we're wondering if all that was for nothing.

He should have thought of that before he got behind the wheel. He’s incredibly lucky he didn’t kill someone. Be grateful for that.

Looks as if the Guardian presented it as fact in 2002. Along with one about Scotland.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2002/apr/14/workandcareers.observercashsection

This may sound quite normal - until you consider that almost a third of men have a criminal conviction by the age of 30, according to the Home Office. Research on men born in 1953 showed that about 30 per cent had clocked up a standard list offence - one that is dealt with by the courts but excludes minor motoring offences - by their thirtieth birthday. Research in Scotland points in the same direction, suggesting that about 25 per cent of men have a record by age 24.

BBC did a fact check article: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-44207104

Research on convictions has also been conducted for England and Wales, and like the Scottish figures, they are based on taking particular years and extrapolating the findings to the population at large.

It seems a stretch to be stating it as fact in 2025, based on an extrapolation of data from men born in 1953. We probably need a more up to date analysis.

MOJ key points seem to back up the idea that since 1995 this rate has dropped considerably: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c98db40f0b65b3de09ea1/criminal-histories-bulletin.pdf

The lower proportions of convicted males who were born in 1973 and in later cohorts is probably due in part to changes in the way offenders are dealt with by the police as well as a fall in crime from 1995. According to the British Crime survey, there were 19 million crimes in 1995. By 2006, this had fallen to 11 million crimes. During the 1980s and 1990s the use of cautions as a means of dealing with an offender, particularly a young offender, increased. In 1971 6 per cent of offenders were dealt with by means of a caution; this figure had increased to 16 per cent by 1991 and to 20 per cent by 2006.
This has had the effect of reducing the proportion with a conviction for the population born in the later cohort years, since many of these offenders are likely to have been given cautions rather than being prosecuted.

The most recent statistics from the MoJ are for 2023. In terms of the figures being quoted here, there had been little change.

Thanks for the responses. It's all been made worse (if possible) by the fact we're abroad and my (late 70's) parents are dealing with everything. They were genuinely afraid he was going to do something awful to himself last night. He is feeling wretched. We're home tomorrow & will be contacting solicitors.

He made a stupid decision and whatever the consequences are, he will have to face them.

Depending on his career choice it may not have any impact at all. Frankly it should imo. Driving under the influence plus driving uninsured is worthy of a life changing impact on his career.

The situation is pretty straightforward, if he wants a 'Graduate' job then there are expectations of behaviour and judgement

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-43351232