An "interesting one". Failure to provide breath, not driving

An "interesting one". Failure to provide breath, not driving

Author
Discussion

anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 23rd July 2014
quotequote all
shambolic said:
Two scenarios for drunk and in charge.
One. Your at a wedding reception and your a cheapskate and the drink is expensive so you have a case of beer and spirits etc in your car (back seat). And every hour you go out to top up.
Could you be done then for drunk in charge?
Two. Campervan and you stop at an overnight layby for dinner and a bottle of red. You are still on a public highway so if the police happened by the layby could you be done as well?
Only by a jobsworth. "The law is the law is the law."

See the very first reply to this thread.


XCP

16,876 posts

227 months

Wednesday 23rd July 2014
quotequote all
carinaman said:
Trax said:
There is a reason Police wait for 'customers' to sober up before questioning, as they are not in a position to be questioned.
If the 'customer' happens to be an off duty officer those doing the questioning may get an earful later.
? how so??

carinaman

21,222 posts

171 months

Wednesday 23rd July 2014
quotequote all
XCP said:
? how so??
From the 'What are you doing asking me and them questions when we've just been bought into custody and we're under the influence?' angle.

Red Devil

13,055 posts

207 months

Wednesday 23rd July 2014
quotequote all
stuthemong said:
Thanks all for your thoughts so far.

Snowboy, this is the nuance here, that had he blown he'd have to try and take the 'not intending to drive' argument, but that he's commited an absolute offence in failure to provide, he can argue all he wants, but it's an absolute offence. The only way I can see him stepping back from a slam-dunk, is to argue that the circumstances under which he commited the absolute offence were not legal, i.e. if the law says you ahve to be in charge of a vehicle for a legal request to be made, then if it were arguable that he were not 'in charge' (or whatever the term would be), then the actual failure to supply can't exist, as it were not a lawful request. This would be the only line that I think he has to go along to try and get cleared of the charge. This is why reading about under what conditions the request for breath can be made under I think is the place to start.... Is this the RTA?
Damage limitation time. Run that argument past this lady - http://www.pattersonlaw.co.uk/ - make sure your friend gives her ALL the facts without embellishment.

carinaman

21,222 posts

171 months

Wednesday 23rd July 2014
quotequote all
Drunken in Charge is discussed in this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b049z7xh

stuthemong

Original Poster:

2,260 posts

216 months

Wednesday 23rd July 2014
quotequote all
Thanks one and all for your thoughts and assistance here.

I think I've managed to get as much information as I need from this thread, so I'll probably not need to add much to this thread going forward, but if it's of interest to those here who wish to discuss further, by all means carry on.

Note to everyone. Never fail to provide!


Best,

Stuart

XCP

16,876 posts

227 months

Thursday 24th July 2014
quotequote all
carinaman said:
From the 'What are you doing asking me and them questions when we've just been bought into custody and we're under the influence?' angle.
and what is the relevance of the off duty officer for goodness sake? Unless an urgent interview is authorised by a senior officer it doesn't matter who the subject is. Get a grip for goodness sake.

carinaman

21,222 posts

171 months

Thursday 24th July 2014
quotequote all
Trax said:
There is a reason Police wait for 'customers' to sober up before questioning, as they are not in a position to be questioned.
XCP said:
and what is the relevance of the off duty officer for goodness sake? Unless an urgent interview is authorised by a senior officer it doesn't matter who the subject is. Get a grip for goodness sake.
I was citing an example where someone didn't wait and the person being questioned knew the rules.

XCP

16,876 posts

227 months

Friday 25th July 2014
quotequote all
'citing an example'. Hardly. Just being silly IMO.

rlw

3,321 posts

236 months

Friday 25th July 2014
quotequote all
To take this lunacy a stage further, had I been out drinking with your mate, and had he asked me to go to his car to get something out of it, and given that I'm not insured to drive it nor had any intention of doing so, would I have been in charge of it simply because I had the key?

Or my 96 year old mum who can't even drive. Does having the key in your hand actually give you all this responsibility?

tenpenceshort

32,880 posts

216 months

Friday 25th July 2014
quotequote all
Is someone, at a car, with the keys for it, not able to be in charge of it?

telecat

8,528 posts

240 months

Friday 25th July 2014
quotequote all
It's a lazy piece of legislation that catches people it shouldn't.

Mk3Spitfire

2,921 posts

127 months

Friday 25th July 2014
quotequote all
telecat said:
It's a lazy piece of legislation that catches people it shouldn't.
Is it? Or is it a preventative piece of legislation that catches people it should?

In my experience, you do well to get a drunk in charge past CPS anyway.

With these feet

5,728 posts

214 months

Friday 25th July 2014
quotequote all
Lads night out, many moons ago, mate felt a bit iffy with chest pains (Heart op a few years earlier) so went to sleep in a mates car in a public car park.
While asleep, BiB knocked on the window, subsequently breath tested and took him to the station ignoring his explanation.

We came out of the club, much later, to find the car unlocked with no clue as to where, when or what had happened.

Trotted off to the Police station a mile or so away and just so happened that our "story" tallied completely with the guy they had arrested for drunk in charge of a motor vehicle. The keys were in the glovebox when he was found asleep, which the Police took with them. If our explanation hadnt matched his, I wonder if he'd have been prosecuted.


telecat

8,528 posts

240 months

Friday 25th July 2014
quotequote all
Mk3Spitfire said:
telecat said:
It's a lazy piece of legislation that catches people it shouldn't.
Is it? Or is it a preventative piece of legislation that catches people it should?

In my experience, you do well to get a drunk in charge past CPS anyway.
Really Seems it is too easy for the Police to try. The lack of a "test" at the roadside means many just seem to see it as an invitation for an Arrest.

HertsBiker

6,300 posts

270 months

Friday 25th July 2014
quotequote all
Seems to me the best plan is to avoid being anywhere near a car when drunk. It's most unfair that someone without a license has nothing to lose, yet could drive a car, but someone with a license who has zero intention of driving could get nicked for collecting a cd out of their own car.... No wonder people dislike the police.

anonymous-user

53 months

Saturday 26th July 2014
quotequote all
HertsBiker said:
It's most unfair that someone without a license has nothing to lose, yet could drive a car
Not legally, so an odd comparison.

HertsBiker said:
but someone with a license who has zero intention of driving could get nicked for collecting a cd out of their own car.... No wonder people dislike the police
It's unlikely and not that common an offence. Proving you had no intention to drive isn't that hard realistically, unless you're in a position that strongly infers intention to the high evidential level.

telecat said:
Really Seems it is too easy for the Police to try. The lack of a "test" at the roadside means many just seem to see it as an invitation for an Arrest.
Yeah, great. Let's get off the streets and go through evidential breath test procedure and do loads of paperwork. You never know, you may end up going to blood and waiting for ages. Sounds like fun to me! rolleyes Lack of what test?

Haggleburyfinius

6,593 posts

185 months

Monday 28th July 2014
quotequote all
The real problem is lack of awareness about these laws and their intricacies.

Mk3Spitfire

2,921 posts

127 months

Monday 28th July 2014
quotequote all
HertsBiker said:
No wonder people dislike the police.
Fair point. As "the police" make up the legislation during briefing before the start of each shift....oh, hang on...

Trax

1,527 posts

231 months

Monday 28th July 2014
quotequote all
Mk3Spitfire said:
HertsBiker said:
No wonder people dislike the police.
Fair point. As "the police" make up the legislation during briefing before the start of each shift....oh, hang on...
No, the legislation is in place to stop drink driving. Its up to the officer seeing someone get a CD from a car to think, well, I can get that poor sod for being in charge, what a good end to my shift....