What constitutes being 'In Charge' of a vehicle?

[flyinyam]

Good evening all,

Talking in pub at weekend, and one of mates recounts tale of how, when his girlfriend was banned last year,that she said,

'If she and him go out to pub in the car with the intention of leaving it there, to be collected the following day, and he hands her his keys, to put in her bag because he has nowhere to carry them, complete with house key, car key etc. That she could be done for being 'In Charge'.

Does the very fact of having the keys about your person, even if you have no intention of returning to the car that evening, render you open to prosecution?

Sounds ridiculous, but in this day and age, completely plausible!

I await to be educated.

Regards Fy

[Derek Smith]

The general rule is that every car on a road or public place has someone in charge of it. The question you should be asking is who this is. This is what is called 'a matter of fact'.

The person normally in charge is the one who drove it there and left it. However, that person can had over the charge of the vehicle to another person.

[Jasandjules]

I seem to think that being inside the vehicle with a set of keys constitutes being "in charge", even if the person is on the back seat. BUT I'm not convinced if you are 10 miles away from the car at home when breath tested and over the limit, that a set of keys about your person would be enough - though I stand to be corrected.

[Jasandjules]

I seem to think that being inside the vehicle with a set of keys constitutes being "in charge", even if the person is on the back seat. BUT I'm not convinced if you are 10 miles away from the car at home when breath tested and over the limit, that a set of keys about your person would be enough - though I stand to be corrected.

[^Slider^]

For drunk in charge we need to show you were "in charge" of that vehicle.

Such as being in a position to be able to drive the vehicle, so sitting in the car with the keys in your posession would be drunk in charge.

The defence which you need to prove is that you had no intention to drive the vehicle.

If you were in the car after a few beers with 2 mates in the back then thats going to be hard for you to prove especially if you were a distance from your house.

Technically, if you are in the pub you are in charge of your car in the car park and again technically commit the offence. However in reality this does not happen. But people in pub carparks in the vehicle itself have been convicted.

Safest option is leave the car at home or a mates if you are on the beers as there are some that after a few hours on the silly juice feel its a good idea to drive.

And yes if you give the keys to your other half while out she becomes in charge, but you are also still in charge of the vehicle as the keys are within easy reach and are accessable!

[dhutch]

^Slider^ said:

... But people in pub carparks in the vehicle itself have been convicted.

Ive also heard this.
- Prehaps an option would be to leave your keys with the landlord, while you sit in the car over night? Assuming you trust the landlord! Or leave the car at home.*

• Techincally, if you leave the car at home and walk/taxi there, with your car and house keys on a combined ring, would you then be incharge? Interesting. Maybe.

Daniel

[flyinyam]

So the onus is on you to PROVE you had no intention to drive?

Is your statement to that fact not evidence enough?

Conversly how would the police prove there WAS intent to drive?

Bizarre!

Regards Fy

[SS2.]

dhutch said:

Techincally, if you leave the car at home and walk/taxi there, with your car and house keys on a combined ring, would you then be incharge?

Its likely that you could be found to be 'in charge' unless and until the vehicle was handed over to someone else - but, sensibly, the law regarding being 'in charge' as far as the drink / driving offences is concerned is rather more stringent.

Whilst there are no hard and fast criteria, the following should be taken as being relevant and, according to a High Court judge, should be considered by a court in order to reach its decision as to whether a person is 'in charge':

a) whether and where he was in the vehicle or how far he was from it;

b) what he was doing at the relevant time;

c) whether he was in possession of a key which fitted the ignition;

d) whether there was evidence of an intention to take control of the car by driving or otherwise;

e) whether any person was in, at or near the vehicle and, if so, the like particulars in respect of that person.

[JustinP1]

flyinyam said:

So the onus is on you to PROVE you had no intention to drive?

Is your statement to that fact not evidence enough?

Conversly how would the police prove there WAS intent to drive?

Bizarre!

Regards Fy

This would be the crux of it. The CPS need to prove the intention to drive.

If you are in the pub with car keys in your pocket, I cannot see the police raiding the place, finding someone over the limit and getting the charge to stick. You would have the easy defence that you have no intention to drive, and never did - you were always getting a taxi/picked up/a lift and you would come back the next day to get your car.

That charge would never stick in court - at least I have never heard of it.

The ones I *have* heard of is where the police have seen a man asleep at the wheel with the keys in the ignition. In that situation it is a lot easier to convince the court that you were in charge and ready to drive - and of course a lot more difficult to show that you were *really* going to call a cab...

[flyinyam]

Agreed , being in the car then you deserve to get done, but being in the pub with a car in the car park seems ridiculous.

I've been there plenty of times only to walk back to the pub the following day to collect my car.

Cheapskate you see, only taxi one way!!!!

She was apparently told ' Never look after somebodys keys and always seperate your house keys from car keys'.

So am i safe asking her indoors to put my keys (including car keys) in her bag, so i don't have any unsightly bulges in my pants! Wouldn't want to get her in trouble, i'd never hear the end of it..... On second thoughts, can you request a custodial sentence????

Cheers Fy

[skip_1]

What happens if you have a keyless start car and are sat in the pub, yet the car could still run?

[GreenV8S]

Derek Smith said:

The general rule is that every car on a road or public place has someone in charge of it. The question you should be asking is who this is. This is what is called 'a matter of fact'.

So, is it the case that according to the letter of the law, if you parked the car and then became drunk without making somebody else responsible for it, you would be deemed drunk in charge of the vehicle?

[Finlandia]

flyinyam said:

being in the car then you deserve to get done

What about a camper van, parked for the night in a parking/camping, driver having a few drinks, no intention to drive but keys and driver inside car and drunk?

[cheeky]

JustinP1 said:

flyinyam said:

So the onus is on you to PROVE you had no intention to drive?

Is your statement to that fact not evidence enough?

Conversly how would the police prove there WAS intent to drive?

Bizarre!

Regards Fy

This would be the crux of it. The CPS need to prove the intention to drive.

If you are in the pub with car keys in your pocket, I cannot see the police raiding the place, finding someone over the limit and getting the charge to stick. You would have the easy defence that you have no intention to drive, and never did - you were always getting a taxi/picked up/a lift and you would come back the next day to get your car.

That charge would never stick in court - at least I have never heard of it.

The ones I *have* heard of is where the police have seen a man asleep at the wheel with the keys in the ignition. In that situation it is a lot easier to convince the court that you were in charge and ready to drive - and of course a lot more difficult to show that you were *really* going to call a cab...

What about asleep in the passenger seat with the key in his pocket?

[SS2.]

cheeky said:

What about asleep in the passenger seat with the key in his pocket?

As has already been said, this is not a question to which there are black and white answers. It is a question of fact and degree for a court to decide whether or not a person is 'in charge' with respect to drink / driving legislation.

Edited by SS2. on Monday 10th November 22:24

[flemke]

^Slider^ said:

And yes if you give the keys to your other half while out she becomes in charge, but you are also still in charge of the vehicle as the keys are within easy reach and are accessable!

You're saying that two people could be simultaneously "in charge" of a single vehicle?
In that case, why wouldn't accompanying friends also be "in charge", as the keys would be within easy reach of them too?

[^Slider^]

flemke said:

^Slider^ said:

And yes if you give the keys to your other half while out she becomes in charge, but you are also still in charge of the vehicle as the keys are within easy reach and are accessable!

You're saying that two people could be simultaneously "in charge" of a single vehicle?
In that case, why wouldn't accompanying friends also be "in charge", as the keys would be within easy reach of them too?

Because it would be his vehicle, and he has ultimate control over it.

If he gave the keys to a mate then same applies, he still has access to the vehicle via the friend, so both could be in charge.

I am refering to acess and posession of keys such as constructive posession and actual posession.

Several people could have access to the keys, but it would not make them all in charge, only the actuall user and the person whom the keys were given.

ETA:

To save confusing people, the only person who would be prosecuted would be the one with the intent to drive, however both could be in charge. However there have been cases where the owner allowing someone to drive whilst over the prescribed limit have been convicted of permitting certain offences

Edited by ^Slider^ on Monday 10th November 22:29

[flemke]

^Slider^ said:

flemke said:

^Slider^ said:

And yes if you give the keys to your other half while out she becomes in charge, but you are also still in charge of the vehicle as the keys are within easy reach and are accessable!

You're saying that two people could be simultaneously "in charge" of a single vehicle?
In that case, why wouldn't accompanying friends also be "in charge", as the keys would be within easy reach of them too?

Because it would be his vehicle, and he has ultimate control over it.

If he gave the keys to a mate then same applies, he still has access to the vehicle via the friend, so both could be in charge.

I am refering to acess and posession of keys such as constructive posession and actual posession.

Several people could have access to the keys, but it would not make them all in charge, only the actuall user and the person whom the keys were given.

ETA:

To save confusing people, the only person who would be prosecuted would be the one with the intent to drive, however both could be in charge. However there have been cases where the owner allowing someone to drive whilst over the prescribed limit have been convicted of permitting certain offences

I guess the distinction is that the owner can always demand to be given his keys, whereas no one else can do?

Thanks for the explanation.

[trackdemon]

flyinyam said:

Agreed , being in the car then you deserve to get done

Even if you have no intention of driving & haven't driven? Seems harsh. Scary too, as I found myself in this exact situation a couple of years ago - was supposed to be staying with a mate after a night out and he went AWOL, couldn't get hold of anyone else as it was 2am, and I lived miles away from where I was. Soooo... I thought I was doing the right thing by deciding to sleep in my car and call again in the morning to catch up for breakfast and thank him for his hospitality But technically I could have been prosecuted for DIC, which would have been rather against the spirit of the law I think?

[The Black Duke]

trackdemon said:

flyinyam said:

Agreed , being in the car then you deserve to get done

Even if you have no intention of driving & haven't driven? Seems harsh. Scary too, as I found myself in this exact situation a couple of years ago - was supposed to be staying with a mate after a night out and he went AWOL, couldn't get hold of anyone else as it was 2am, and I lived miles away from where I was. Soooo... I thought I was doing the right thing by deciding to sleep in my car and call again in the morning to catch up for breakfast and thank him for his hospitality But technically I could have been prosecuted for DIC, which would have been rather against the spirit of the law I think?

Friend of mine got a 2 year ban for DIC. She was sleeping in the back of a van on some music equipment as she was too pissed to drive. Silly bugger had the engine running with the heaters on as it was mid December and she was cold.