Drunk in charge of a vehicle
Discussion
thinfourth said:
philthy said:
hedders said:
What you are saying is that even though there would be an obvious element of doubt , you can still get done? Does that not bring our entire legal system into doubt?
Element of doubt notwithstanding, if the officer says he believes you will drive, he will arrest you. It is then your job to prove your innocence, either to the custody sergeant, or later on in court.
Bringing our legal system into doubt? not for me, but some parts of it stink.
Some people believe in fairies you know ?
Thought as much
keys get locked in the car and i return with the spare set the following day
What a
ed up country we live inIts not believe you will drive it is suspect you will drive.
If you are nicked you will be interviewed, the custody skipper only autherises detention based on the officers version of events, you cannot argue this and if the custody skipper deams that the arrest was lawfull then you will go for EBM and interiew depending on your level of intox.
^Slider^ said:
thinfourth said:
philthy said:
hedders said:
What you are saying is that even though there would be an obvious element of doubt , you can still get done? Does that not bring our entire legal system into doubt?
Element of doubt notwithstanding, if the officer says he believes you will drive, he will arrest you. It is then your job to prove your innocence, either to the custody sergeant, or later on in court.
Bringing our legal system into doubt? not for me, but some parts of it stink.
Some people believe in fairies you know ?
Thought as much
keys get locked in the car and i return with the spare set the following day
What a
ed up country we live inIts not believe you will drive it is suspect you will drive.
If you are nicked you will be interviewed, the custody skipper only autherises detention based on the officers version of events, you cannot argue this and if the custody skipper deams that the arrest was lawfull then you will go for EBM and interiew depending on your level of intox.
So you are saying if he suspects i might drive the car then i can get charged with drunk in charge
Defiantly locking keys in car.
Anyway what is the offical definition of drunk in charge. Am i in charge of a car if it is on my drive and the keys are in my house and i am ratted ?
You are talking to someone that had the plod tun up as his door because an old biddy found the noise of my 7 threatening in a car park, and she put in a complaint and i got offically warned about my driving because i started my car and she found it a bit noisey.
Edited by thinfourth on Friday 4th August 18:55
thinfourth said:
So you are saying if he suspects i might drive the car then i can get charged with drunk in charge
Defiantly locking keys in car.
Anyway what is the offical definition of drunk in charge
I think you have answered your own question here !
Is it not impossible to lock keys in a car these days, unless you do it with a spare set, but you would still have keys on you ?
If a person drives, attempts to drive or is in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit, he shall be guilty of an offence.
The definition of in charge is only case law, meaning having the ability to drive ie access to keys (giving keys to a mate wont work as you still have access to them, same with locking the keys in the car, technically leaving the keys at home could also be in charge as you do have access to them)and ideally intending to drive or have driven
The definition of in charge is only case law, meaning having the ability to drive ie access to keys (giving keys to a mate wont work as you still have access to them, same with locking the keys in the car, technically leaving the keys at home could also be in charge as you do have access to them)and ideally intending to drive or have driven
^Slider^ said:
The definition of in charge is only case law, meaning having the ability to drive ie access to keys (giving keys to a mate wont work as you still have access to them, same with locking the keys in the car, technically leaving the keys at home could also be in charge as you do have access to them)and ideally intending to drive or have driven
So you are pretty much stuffed if plodsworth decides to do you over
Though i doubt that i could be found guilty if i had locked the keys in the landrover (very easy with 1990s locks) and the spare set where at home. though looking at this thread i might even get on the bus
Now thats a horrible thought a bus
^Slider^ said:
If a person drives, attempts to drive or is in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit, he shall be guilty of an offence.
The definition of in charge is only case law, meaning having the ability to drive ie access to keys (giving keys to a mate wont work as you still have access to them, same with locking the keys in the car, technically leaving the keys at home could also be in charge as you do have access to them)and ideally intending to drive or have driven
The definition of in charge is only case law, meaning having the ability to drive ie access to keys (giving keys to a mate wont work as you still have access to them, same with locking the keys in the car, technically leaving the keys at home could also be in charge as you do have access to them)and ideally intending to drive or have driven
Don't these cases get laughed out of court?
So far we've had-
Getting stuff out of the boot
Sleeping in the boot
and the last paragraph above is bizarre, it implies that having a drink at all, while owning a car, is an offence!!!!!! On that basis nearly everyone is guilty!!!!
Why are these cases taken seriously?
Serious questions-
Can a breath test be refused on the basis that you are not driving and therefore have not commited a drink drive offence?
Can a defence be mounted along the lines that you cannot be in charge until the controls are activated and that opening a boot in no way constitutes activating the controls?
Could a counter claim be made on the basis of wasting police/court time or harrasment?
Nit picking I know Slider, but suspecting someone will drive is even less of a qualification than believing they will.
After all, I suspect I may win something on the lottery, however I don't really believe that I will ?
It seems to me like a law that has a very large grey area in it, and could possibly be used maliciously if needed. Remember the trumped up charges against Mr Winston Kudowgo ? Walking around in a loud shirt, walking on the cracks in the pavement etc Completely ridiculous of course, but if constable savage had charged him with walking towards his car after having a drink ?
You sound like one of the good guys, using common sense. Let's face it no-one wants to see anybody that's been drinking behind the wheel, but DiC is somewhat open to interpretation IMHO.
After all, I suspect I may win something on the lottery, however I don't really believe that I will ?
It seems to me like a law that has a very large grey area in it, and could possibly be used maliciously if needed. Remember the trumped up charges against Mr Winston Kudowgo ? Walking around in a loud shirt, walking on the cracks in the pavement etc Completely ridiculous of course, but if constable savage had charged him with walking towards his car after having a drink ?
You sound like one of the good guys, using common sense. Let's face it no-one wants to see anybody that's been drinking behind the wheel, but DiC is somewhat open to interpretation IMHO.
philthy said:
Nit picking I know Slider, but suspecting someone will drive is even less of a qualification than believing they will.
After all, I suspect I may win something on the lottery, however I don't really believe that I will ?
It seems to me like a law that has a very large grey area in it, and could possibly be used maliciously if needed. Remember the trumped up charges against Mr Winston Kudowgo ? Walking around in a loud shirt, walking on the cracks in the pavement etc Completely ridiculous of course, but if constable savage had charged him with walking towards his car after having a drink ?
You sound like one of the good guys, using common sense. Let's face it no-one wants to see anybody that's been drinking behind the wheel, but DiC is somewhat open to interpretation IMHO.
After all, I suspect I may win something on the lottery, however I don't really believe that I will ?
It seems to me like a law that has a very large grey area in it, and could possibly be used maliciously if needed. Remember the trumped up charges against Mr Winston Kudowgo ? Walking around in a loud shirt, walking on the cracks in the pavement etc Completely ridiculous of course, but if constable savage had charged him with walking towards his car after having a drink ?
You sound like one of the good guys, using common sense. Let's face it no-one wants to see anybody that's been drinking behind the wheel, but DiC is somewhat open to interpretation IMHO.
I dont like using this bit of law becasue it relys on alot of assumption, but needs must and its a tool for the job.
You are quite correct about the suspect and believe parts. But for every law i need reasonable grounds to suspect, drunk in charge is no different.
DIC is seen as preventative whereas driving whislt over is obviously not. It stops the we'll have to wait till he drives off before we can arrest and then possibly making off. Its like the criminal attempts act, an attempt drink drive if you like!
cymtriks said:
^Slider^ said:
If a person drives, attempts to drive or is in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit, he shall be guilty of an offence.
The definition of in charge is only case law, meaning having the ability to drive ie access to keys (giving keys to a mate wont work as you still have access to them, same with locking the keys in the car, technically leaving the keys at home could also be in charge as you do have access to them)and ideally intending to drive or have driven
The definition of in charge is only case law, meaning having the ability to drive ie access to keys (giving keys to a mate wont work as you still have access to them, same with locking the keys in the car, technically leaving the keys at home could also be in charge as you do have access to them)and ideally intending to drive or have driven
Don't these cases get laughed out of court?
So far we've had-
Getting stuff out of the boot
Sleeping in the boot
and the last paragraph above is bizarre, it implies that having a drink at all, while owning a car, is an offence!!!!!! On that basis nearly everyone is guilty!!!!
Why are these cases taken seriously?
Serious questions-
Can a breath test be refused on the basis that you are not driving and therefore have not commited a drink drive offence?
Can a defence be mounted along the lines that you cannot be in charge until the controls are activated and that opening a boot in no way constitutes activating the controls?
Could a counter claim be made on the basis of wasting police/court time or harrasment?
Its nothing to do with the controls, its being in charge of a motor vehicle.
As i said to Philthy,
Its a preventative law to a degree and is an attempt drink drive kind of offence.
If if have reasonable grounds to suspect that you have driven, are driving, or are in charge of a vehicle i can require a breath test, failiure to do so is an offence and you can be arrested for that offence. (section 6 road traffic act) and possibly charged for fail to provide which is generally a ban anyway.
Yep everyone is guilty of DIC but not everyone has the intent to drive.
And yes these cases do get to court, although there is evidence to suggest that they were going to drive or had driven.
Dont get too paranoid, use common sense and you would be ok i would like to think.
ETA:
A counter claim?? im assuming that you mean claim against the police, in short no, because we have a defence to harassment if its in the course of duty in short. A complaint can be made but if the officer had the grounds then it wouldn't go anywhere.
Edited by ^Slider^ on Saturday 5th August 14:26
We have two offences to consider:
D (drunk)/I/C when unfit through drink or drugs with the inbuilt provision will not deemed to be I/C if he proves at the material time the circumstances were such that there was no likelyhood of him driving so long as he remains unfit. PC is not obliged to take this proof at the road side to make the arrest lawful. This does not involve the use of Roadside breathalyser but Impairment Tests at Road side or Police Station.
I/C OPL (over prescribed limit) (Breath Test) but here there is a defence for a person CHARGED of at the time of being I/C OPL that there was no likelyhood of driving the vehicle whilst OPL. Note from the word charged at what stage this defence comes in.
A leading case on I/C is DPP v Watkins 1989:
If the Defendant is the owner or lawful possessor of the vehicle or has recently driven it, he will have been in charge of it and the question for the Court will be whether he is still in charge or whether he has relinquished his charge ... Usually such a Defendant will be prima facie in charge unless he has put the vehicle in someone else's charge. However, he would not be so if in all the circumstances he has ceased to be in actual control and there is no realistic possibility of his resuming actual control while unfit e.g. If he is at home in bed on the night or if he is a great distance from the car or if it is taken by another”
Regarding I/C OPL this can be quickly resolved to some extent by blowing a negative in a preliminary test but in a positive the offence is there if the I/C is satisified as is the DIC.
One can go through a whole load of scenarios where technically a person is I/C but in reality several not likely to stand up to that. There is no hard and fast rule other than if in that situation one severs as much connection with the vehicle as possible. Have some sympathy with Plod coming across someone asleep, some distance from his home in the rear seat of their own car with keys and well lathered to be met with the response "Shleeping hit hoff ossifer" What are you going to do?
dvd
D (drunk)/I/C when unfit through drink or drugs with the inbuilt provision will not deemed to be I/C if he proves at the material time the circumstances were such that there was no likelyhood of him driving so long as he remains unfit. PC is not obliged to take this proof at the road side to make the arrest lawful. This does not involve the use of Roadside breathalyser but Impairment Tests at Road side or Police Station.
I/C OPL (over prescribed limit) (Breath Test) but here there is a defence for a person CHARGED of at the time of being I/C OPL that there was no likelyhood of driving the vehicle whilst OPL. Note from the word charged at what stage this defence comes in.
A leading case on I/C is DPP v Watkins 1989:
If the Defendant is the owner or lawful possessor of the vehicle or has recently driven it, he will have been in charge of it and the question for the Court will be whether he is still in charge or whether he has relinquished his charge ... Usually such a Defendant will be prima facie in charge unless he has put the vehicle in someone else's charge. However, he would not be so if in all the circumstances he has ceased to be in actual control and there is no realistic possibility of his resuming actual control while unfit e.g. If he is at home in bed on the night or if he is a great distance from the car or if it is taken by another”
Regarding I/C OPL this can be quickly resolved to some extent by blowing a negative in a preliminary test but in a positive the offence is there if the I/C is satisified as is the DIC.
One can go through a whole load of scenarios where technically a person is I/C but in reality several not likely to stand up to that. There is no hard and fast rule other than if in that situation one severs as much connection with the vehicle as possible. Have some sympathy with Plod coming across someone asleep, some distance from his home in the rear seat of their own car with keys and well lathered to be met with the response "Shleeping hit hoff ossifer" What are you going to do?
dvd
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff