AFAIK being "in charge" is only an issue if you are above the legal BAC or actually driving the thing, of course if you're driving you're no longer merely "in charge".

HTH

The 'in charge' offence is specifically related to the drink drive laws.

Other offences, eg no insurance generally require someone to be driving, using, causing or permitting.

In none of these situations will the 'boy going out to the van for tools' normally be so doing. They require much more control over the 'movement' of a vehicle.

But can I ask for further clarification - is it merely being in possession of the keys, whether in or out of the vehicle, or is being pissed in the back whilst the keys are with someone else also in charge?

There is the statutory defence of it not being likely that you will drive - your keys being locked in the safe in the pub you are sleeping outside of would probably satisfy a court on this one.

If the Officer had reason to believe you were planning to give your mates a lift home, you might end up having to answer questions in that regard. Depending on how you answer, it could lead to a charge and prosecution.

In the absence of any evidence supporting the above scenario, and a plausible explanation that you had been out drinking and were finishing off the conversation before hitting the sack, common sense should prevail.

I think it is easier to look at who is in charge of a motor vehicle on a road from s different direction.

My undestanding of 'in charge', given to me by a senior CPS lawyer, was that someone is in charge of every car on a road until they pass that charge onto someone else. You drive it to a location, park it, then you remain in charge of it until that responsibility to another.

That said, the CPS womans aid that it had not (then) yet been tested in court but that was what they looked for in an 'in charge' file.

So forget about keys and whether they were in another pocket or not.

No problem. I agree with what you say.

The file was difficult for me as person i/c the process unit. There was some pressure to procede with it from division: a PC had been injured during the arrest - a clear assault but he had a very 'creative' defence. Hence why I went to the CPS, I didn't want it rejected by them.

He'd refused everything so procedure was the defence's only hope. All I did was get division to find out whether the owner of the car - who lived at the house he'd ended up at - would have accepted charge of the car. He wouldn't he said, so someone else had to be and the favourite was our drug-dealing defendant.

There was a worry that an appeal might have resulted for clarification as to how 'charge' is distributed but the CPS were happy that for charge to pass from one person to another there must be some procedural system in place or the person receiving the 'charge' must be aware and accept it.

In order to clarify the thing in my my I asked about the northern patrol car which in those days was left at Withdean car park by the off-going unit if the oncoming shift were late. Who, I asked, was in charge? The CPS lawyer thought for a few second then asked: Have you a file on this? I said: Of coure not. She said: Then ps off and don't ask again until you have one.

So 'charge' is up for 'clarification' it seems.

In the case I was talking about, there was evidence that he would have driven home in the car if the police had not found him.

I seem to remember that the chap did a runner to Scotland where he got nicked almost at once for a serious assault so I'm not aware of the eventual outcome.