[russellw]

I was a little surprised at a couple of the charges, namely the fail to render assistance & failure to exchange names and addresses as my understanding is that one of the things the prosecution must prove is that the offender was actually driving.

Likewise the failing to render assistance as the Act specifically states that an offender must be a driver involved in the accident and in this case that's drawing a really long bow.

You possibly could (and the prosecution will no doubt) argue that because the Porsche was involved in the accident; even though it was stationary and he presumably wasn't in it at the time; extend the definition of 'driving' to include the fact that he drove it to the place where the incident occurred.

I'm not wanting him to get anything less than he deserves but we also need to be mindful that case precedents once set become enshrined until successfully challenged in a higher court and have a wider ranging impact that might be initially obvious.