Discussion
There have been a number of posts on the subject of being in charge of a motor car, mostly involving alcohol. Can any member clarify the position often arising when a lad is sent out to 'the van' for tools etc while not a driver, yet with the keys and of course no drink involved. This must happen daily with any van based trades people. Is this illegal, as having the keys must put the key carrier 'in charge' and liable to prosecution if not legally entitled to drive the said van. Am I wrong ? It concerns me that this may be spotted as another revenue gathering opportunity.
duckwhistle said:
There have been a number of posts on the subject of being in charge of a motor car, mostly involving alcohol. Can any member clarify the position often arising when a lad is sent out to 'the van' for tools etc while not a driver, yet with the keys and of course no drink involved. This must happen daily with any van based trades people. Is this illegal, as having the keys must put the key carrier 'in charge' and liable to prosecution if not legally entitled to drive the said van. Am I wrong ? It concerns me that this may be spotted as another revenue gathering opportunity.
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
As far as I'm aware, there is no "in charge" offence as is the case with impairment offences. The person would have to be 'using' the vehicle to commit the offence. If someone is using the vehicle in the course of their employment, they also have a defence to no insurance if they did not own the vehicle and believed and had no reason not to believe they were covered by a policy of insurance.
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.
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.
joebongo said:
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?
No simple answer, either might be, it is for a court to decide depending upon the exact situation as presented to them.kaf said:
joebongo said:
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?
No simple answer, either might be, it is for a court to decide depending upon the exact situation as presented to them.Ok, so how about this. I park my car on the road outside my house, probably 10 or 12 feet from my front door, and say 4 or 5 foot from the garden wall.
A couple of times a week, a few of us walk down to the local boozer, and have more to drink than would be safe to drive.
We then wander back, and finish our conversasions outside my house (mine is the first house we come to), and often end up leaning against either the gate post or the car, which I reitterate is parked on the road.
In my hands I have the keys to my house, which is on the same ring as my car key. I hve no intention of driving, but could look like it given I have my car key in my hand, and am leaning against the car.
What are the chances of some over zealous copper doing me for drunk in charge?
A couple of times a week, a few of us walk down to the local boozer, and have more to drink than would be safe to drive.
We then wander back, and finish our conversasions outside my house (mine is the first house we come to), and often end up leaning against either the gate post or the car, which I reitterate is parked on the road.
In my hands I have the keys to my house, which is on the same ring as my car key. I hve no intention of driving, but could look like it given I have my car key in my hand, and am leaning against the car.
What are the chances of some over zealous copper doing me for drunk in charge?
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.
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.
AndyNetwork said:
Ok, so how about this. I park my car on the road outside my house, probably 10 or 12 feet from my front door, and say 4 or 5 foot from the garden wall.
A couple of times a week, a few of us walk down to the local boozer, and have more to drink than would be safe to drive.
We then wander back, and finish our conversasions outside my house (mine is the first house we come to), and often end up leaning against either the gate post or the car, which I reitterate is parked on the road.
In my hands I have the keys to my house, which is on the same ring as my car key. I hve no intention of driving, but could look like it given I have my car key in my hand, and am leaning against the car.
What are the chances of some over zealous copper doing me for drunk in charge?
A couple of times a week, a few of us walk down to the local boozer, and have more to drink than would be safe to drive.
We then wander back, and finish our conversasions outside my house (mine is the first house we come to), and often end up leaning against either the gate post or the car, which I reitterate is parked on the road.
In my hands I have the keys to my house, which is on the same ring as my car key. I hve no intention of driving, but could look like it given I have my car key in my hand, and am leaning against the car.
What are the chances of some over zealous copper doing me for drunk in charge?
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.
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.
In relation to drink/ drugs and "driving" legislation. sec 4, sec 5 etc
"In charge" has no legal definition
The onus is, however, for the accused to prove that there was no likelihood of him driving the car
PS. do not look for finite definitions in law and answers to made up scenarios. Sometimes there will not be one. This is why we have courts who make judgements and rule on such matters.
edit, that's not aimed at you Derek, but more towards some of the more "creative" posters on this thread with never ending scenarios......
"In charge" has no legal definition
The onus is, however, for the accused to prove that there was no likelihood of him driving the car
PS. do not look for finite definitions in law and answers to made up scenarios. Sometimes there will not be one. This is why we have courts who make judgements and rule on such matters.
edit, that's not aimed at you Derek, but more towards some of the more "creative" posters on this thread with never ending scenarios......
Edited by Red 4 on Monday 2nd July 22:03
Red 4 said:
In relation to drink/ drugs and "driving" legislation. sec 4, sec 5 etc
"In charge" has no legal definition
The onus is, however, for the accused to prove that there was no likelihood of him driving the car
PS. do not look for finite definitions in law and answers to made up scenarios. Sometimes there will not be one. This is why we have courts who make judgements and rule on such matters.
edit, that's not aimed at you Derek, but more towards some of the more "creative" posters on this thread with never ending scenarios......
No problem. I agree with what you say."In charge" has no legal definition
The onus is, however, for the accused to prove that there was no likelihood of him driving the car
PS. do not look for finite definitions in law and answers to made up scenarios. Sometimes there will not be one. This is why we have courts who make judgements and rule on such matters.
edit, that's not aimed at you Derek, but more towards some of the more "creative" posters on this thread with never ending scenarios......
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 p
s 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.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff