My lad used to go partying and was quite happy to sleep in the back of the car as he was pretty responsible about drink driving. No way could he afford a taxi but legally he was taking a chance if he parked up in a lay-by or even a pub car park. Used to really p,iss me off.

And what about motor caravanners? Park up for the night but have a few bevvies with an evening meal? They are still in charge of vehicle.

dl

 

How to Campervan drivers get on after drinking, can they not sleep in a campervan drunk?

 

All the above reasons for the attitude of the law are perfectly reasonable. The point is, you are in charge of the car.

There is no guarantee that you wont drive the car later while still over the limit.

Les

 

So guilty of the offence without doing it? im coming over all minority report,,, lol

All joking aside, i know why they have that law, as in to stop people parking up like mentioned before, but someone asleep in the car like that, with steamed up windows (i bet they were anyway) etc kinda says hes been there longer than 5 mins, so hasn't just parked up.

Seems to be common sence would be that he's not being a problem and leave him to it. If he started to drive later under the influence then he should be done.

Guilty before doing the offence, so because we all have cars that will do more than the speed limit does that mean we all should be done for speeding before we do it, becuase the possibility is there?

 

If he'd provided a sample of his breath at the station the lawyer could've put up this defence. He didn't.

ETA. Well not the defence in the last paragraph, obviously.

 

yeah thats what he got done for, but its why did they bother asking him for it in the first place? why not check hes ok, remind him not to drive untill the alchol has left his system then go on there way.

 

I think the important factor here is being in charge of the vehicle means having the ignition key with you inside the car. If the police search you and you do not have the key with you, they can't do you for being in charge. Leave the key outside the vehicle or with someone else.

 

Because they're policemen and their job is to apply the law.

 

It’s common now for cps in these matters to drop the case unless the engine was running; in effect you’re showing some signs of intention to drive. I think there is a stated case of a similar chap staying in his car following an argument with his wife, he had the engine running to warm it up a bit as it was in the middle of winter. I think he got off with it as the prosecution could not disprove his defence.

Briefly reading this story, did he not go guilty at court. If he has, then he either knows he’s guilty and wants a clear conscious or he’s mad, because he could have got off with it so long as his story checks out.

Which brings me nicely to why he was arrested in the first place. Was there a witness or the chance of CCTV which will prove he drove it around the time of the offence. A supermarket car park will be covered by CCTV to some degree – so he would rightly be arrested at the time, interviewed and bailed pending the results of viewing the CCTV when the store opens again.

If this was the case – he was madly drunk and drove it around merrily, it will answer why he went guilty of being drunk in charge. It will be a lesser fine and it wouldn’t look so bad in the papers….

 

a bit of common sence would help as well

 

common sense was applied - or do we just take his word for the fact he hasn't been driving.

 

Surely establishing the truth of that one way or another should be as simple as popping the hood and seeing if the engine's warm? I can't believe anyone in this thread has mentioned this yet.

 

Life is such a bee-atch KOT, aint it?!

Sounds familiar!

 

Might have only been a short distance he drove it (from the pub to the car park) and the length of time he was they, it might have cooled. It won't take that long for an engine to go cold.

 

I thought the test here was whether someone was trying on the excuse that they'd not been driving at all, when in reality they'd only just pulled up and hopped into the back seat. A completely cold engine would certainly prove that untrue.

 

All this warm engine stuff is completely irrelevant. Road Traffic Act 1988 s.4(2) and Road Traffic Act 1998 s.5(1)(6):

It is an offence for a person to be in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place with excess alcohol in his breath or in blood or urine as evidenced by a certificate of analysis or statement.

It is an offence for a person to be in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place while unfit through drink or drugs.
Also known as:

Drunk in charge, being in charge of a vehicle whilst under the influence of alcohol, in charge of a motor vehicle with excess alcohol.

In charge while unfit, in charge whilst under the influence of drink or drugs, In charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle while unfit through drink or drugs.

*********

So, the Police were right to nick him. It would've been up to him to have proved he had no intention of driving the vehicle, but as previously stated he failed to provide a specimen. Case closed. Here's your ban, Ol' Son.

Imagine if the coppers had left him to it and he'd decided to drive (because he was pissed) and some accident happened; we'll say it involved a small child or a cat - Snet would be up in arms that the policemen had failed in their duties. In fact, I'm fairly confident the OP would've led the charge!

 

No, he could have driven it hours ago. If we can prove it was driven whilst he was drunk, then case closed. It would of course depend what he said in his interview and specimen anlysis, cctv etc etc

 

The word highlighted is the most important. Now if you can do that beyond reasonable doubt then I would like to see your evidence?

 

To defend yourself against this charge is to hide your keys and sleep in the back of the car. It would be very difficult for the prosecution to prove their case.

 

well all the chavs at the car shows will be in BIG trouble, there are hundreds at shows such as PVS that get pissed and sleep in there cars, keys in the ignition with the sub thumping.

 

JT - does it explain anywhere what "in charge" means?

TX.

 

You may have CCTV, a witness..... In interview he will be asked when he last had a drink - then you can back calculate the level of alcohol in his system at the time the specimen was taken, to when he claimed he last drank to when the evidence (CCTV etc) states he was driving.

If this points to the fact he was driving whilst over the limit - then its off to court charged with drink drive

 

The law quite correctly states that it is an offence to be in charge of a car, ie you could actually drive it at the time, when you are over the limit in case you cause an accident possibly with fatal results.

If you are so stupid as to put yourself in such a position then you can expect to get done for it primarily to prevent the possibility of you driving the car after you were discovered to be over the top.

It is pretty important that no one gets killed or injured.

I can't see anything unfair in what the copper did.

Les

 

Taken from this site:

http://www.drinkdrivinglaw.co.uk/off...eing_in_charge

What is the legal definition of being in charge?

There is no legal definition for the term "in charge" so each case will depend on its exact circumstances and facts. Generally, a Defendant is "in charge" if he was the owner/in possession of the vehicle or had recently driven it. He is not in charge if it is being driven by another person or is "a great distance" from the vehicle.

Matters are more complicated where a person is sitting in the vehicle or "otherwise involved with it". In charge can include attempting to gain entry to the vehicle and failing, having keys to the vehicle, having intention to take control of the vehicle or even "being near the vehicle".*

.........

So, again, he should've provided the specimen and used the fees from his BT adverts to hire a sound lawyer to convince the court that he was not "in charge" of his vehicle whilst under the influence. Either way, the charge that the policemen were "stupid" is erroneous and unfair.

 

That he'd driven it isn't in question here. It's whether he could have driven it, which he clearly could because he had the keys and was in the car.

 

A very similar thing happened to a mate of mine.

Only this time the BiB just took his keys and told matey to pick them up from the station, but to leave it a day to be sure he wasn't still under the influence.

It was a few years ago now, though.

Tbh, I think the BiB in the OP's case was absolutely correct in what he did - serves that actor right for making such $hit adverts...

 

I know someone who did this. Bloke complained the next day that the police took his keys off him. He was proven correct that we had no power to do this and received a huge compensation pay off...

 

As Andy pointed out, you aren't exactly starting out from a strong position to be able to do this, if any significant amount of time has passed between the time of measurement of the subject's blood alcohol, and the time it can be proved that the vehicle was actually last driven. The law should never allow you the possibility of getting a conviction, if for example there's concrete proof a car had been parked for 4 hours before you breath-tested its owner, and you were trying to get that conviction on the basis that his blood alcohol from that test was halfway or one quarter below the limit, and therefore would have been well above it 4 hours earlier. There's no way on earth you could ever prove conclusively that he hadn't consumed all of that alcohol measured in the test just half an hour before you got there, so your charges should either be dropped from the start or your case thrown out.

 

It will depend on what he says in his interview, or witness statements as to when he last drank.

I would suggest 4 hours would be too long, but if you're talking more of 1-2 hours......

 

Doesn't matter what he says or what anyone else says - he refused a roadside breath test.