An "interesting one". Failure to provide breath, not driving
Discussion
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."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?
See the very first reply to this thread.
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.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?
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
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
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.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. 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?
Or my 96 year old mum who can't even drive. Does having the key in your hand actually give you all this responsibility?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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! Lack of what test? 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...Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff