Driver celebrates human rights court victory
Discussion
A man accused of being in charge of a vehicle after consuming excess alcohol is celebrating a human rights victory which could affect many other motorists.
In a case which split senior judges, Peter Sheldrake won a High Court ruling that road traffic laws which led to his conviction were "disproportionate".
The judges ruled the British laws "violated the presumption of innocence" to which Mr Sheldrake was entitled under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The police had found Mr Sheldrake, a maintenance fitter, asleep in his van with the doors locked on the evening of February 9, 2001 in a car park in Essex.
Mr Sheldrake, from the village of Hatfield Peverel, Essex, was found guilty of being "in charge" after local magistrates decided that he had failed to convince them that he had no intention of driving his van while over the limit. But, in a ruling which prosecutors fear marks a setback in the battle against drinking and driving, the High Court majority ruled the burden of proof contained in Section 5 was contrary to the human rights convention.
Mr Sheldrake's appeal was allowed by Lord Justice Clarke and Mr Justice Jack, with Mr Justice Henriques dissenting.
Lord Justice Clarke said imposing the reverse burden of proof in his case "violates the presumption of innocence because it enables an accused to be convicted, even though the court is not sure that there is a likelihood or risk of his driving".
During a recent hearing, his QC James Turner said he had parked in the car park after being called to deal with a drainage problem.
At the time matrimonial problems were playing on his mind and he accepted that he had a good deal to drink. He returned to the van and fell asleep in the driver's seat. A breath test revealed he was well over the limit, with 144 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath.
In July 2001, local magistrates ordered him to serve 160 hours community service, his licence was endorsed with 10 penalty points and he was ordered to pay legal costs of £395.
In a case which split senior judges, Peter Sheldrake won a High Court ruling that road traffic laws which led to his conviction were "disproportionate".
The judges ruled the British laws "violated the presumption of innocence" to which Mr Sheldrake was entitled under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The police had found Mr Sheldrake, a maintenance fitter, asleep in his van with the doors locked on the evening of February 9, 2001 in a car park in Essex.
Mr Sheldrake, from the village of Hatfield Peverel, Essex, was found guilty of being "in charge" after local magistrates decided that he had failed to convince them that he had no intention of driving his van while over the limit. But, in a ruling which prosecutors fear marks a setback in the battle against drinking and driving, the High Court majority ruled the burden of proof contained in Section 5 was contrary to the human rights convention.
Mr Sheldrake's appeal was allowed by Lord Justice Clarke and Mr Justice Jack, with Mr Justice Henriques dissenting.
Lord Justice Clarke said imposing the reverse burden of proof in his case "violates the presumption of innocence because it enables an accused to be convicted, even though the court is not sure that there is a likelihood or risk of his driving".
During a recent hearing, his QC James Turner said he had parked in the car park after being called to deal with a drainage problem.
At the time matrimonial problems were playing on his mind and he accepted that he had a good deal to drink. He returned to the van and fell asleep in the driver's seat. A breath test revealed he was well over the limit, with 144 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath.
In July 2001, local magistrates ordered him to serve 160 hours community service, his licence was endorsed with 10 penalty points and he was ordered to pay legal costs of £395.
"But, in a ruling which prosecutors fear marks a setback in the battle against drinking and driving,"
Was the engine running or the exhaust hot/warm? No- then he had neither drove or intended to drive.
I still think it shows a lack of judgement ('cos he's pissed!) to go anywhere near a car after drinking, but good for him.
Was the engine running or the exhaust hot/warm? No- then he had neither drove or intended to drive.
I still think it shows a lack of judgement ('cos he's pissed!) to go anywhere near a car after drinking, but good for him.
you are of course aware that in law its totally irrelevant though? Sadly, the only way you can be in your car pissed is if you've thrown the keys out of the window afterwards....
was a case in court a few years back where the bloke had strapped himself into the passenger seat and was using the engine to run the fan (there was a lot of rather reasonable supporting evidence around this). Was still done.....which struck me as taking the p*ss quite frankly...take a just graduated, fully paid up member of the human race, and turn them into someone who now hates the police and UK law....wonderful piece of intelligent enforcement isn't it?
hmm...on the other hand, am sure Madcop could tell us many a case of 'just getting the bloke as he got into the driver seat' who then came up with the "I wasn't going to drive, officer...honest!" routine....
hmm - that was a ll a little rambling and pointless...oh well!
was a case in court a few years back where the bloke had strapped himself into the passenger seat and was using the engine to run the fan (there was a lot of rather reasonable supporting evidence around this). Was still done.....which struck me as taking the p*ss quite frankly...take a just graduated, fully paid up member of the human race, and turn them into someone who now hates the police and UK law....wonderful piece of intelligent enforcement isn't it?
hmm...on the other hand, am sure Madcop could tell us many a case of 'just getting the bloke as he got into the driver seat' who then came up with the "I wasn't going to drive, officer...honest!" routine....
hmm - that was a ll a little rambling and pointless...oh well!
hang on, SO WHAT if you are in a vehicle... by logical extension, merely HOLDING the keys means you MIGHT drive a car. Infact, OWNING a car might mean... blah blah blah. This is Policing gone too far, why can't they concentrate on real crime FFS? have the Pols got nothing better to do that prosecute someone who ain't done anything? I'm glad he got off.
C
C
Loads of people have been done like this, when it was obvious they were never going to drink drive.
In my thinner days :-) when we used to go kayaking and ended up kipping in the cars after a skinful of beer, we always exchanged keys so that we couldn't be accused of drink driving.
Personally I think the court was right in this situation, he was being responsible by not driving the car, any other verdict would encourage people to drink drive as there would be less chance of being caught if the car was moving rather than being parked up.
In my thinner days :-) when we used to go kayaking and ended up kipping in the cars after a skinful of beer, we always exchanged keys so that we couldn't be accused of drink driving.
Personally I think the court was right in this situation, he was being responsible by not driving the car, any other verdict would encourage people to drink drive as there would be less chance of being caught if the car was moving rather than being parked up.
pdv6 said:
he had parked in the car park
So, if I read this right he wasn't even on the road?
Could you be done for being in your garage with your car after a couple of shandies then?
No - your garage is not open to the public in general and therefore neither the Road Traffic Acts or the Licensing Act apply. The public in general has access to the car park and therefore the whole smash applies.
Its fair enought to pass comment on this particular case of alleged Drink Driving but as has been pointed out many times in the past.....you really do need to know the full and true facts of the incident.
Was he in the driving seat? Were the keys in the ignition? Was the engine running?
As for the comment made "why dont the police concentrate on other things instead of picking on drivers who may/or may not drive then i think that you might share a different view once you have dealt with Drunken Drivers who have caused death and hayhem on our roads.
I feel better for saying that and its a view that i believe most people would agree on.
Was he in the driving seat? Were the keys in the ignition? Was the engine running?
As for the comment made "why dont the police concentrate on other things instead of picking on drivers who may/or may not drive then i think that you might share a different view once you have dealt with Drunken Drivers who have caused death and hayhem on our roads.
I feel better for saying that and its a view that i believe most people would agree on.
lucozade said: Woohoo! about time too.
I won't condone drink driving one little bit but I do firmly believe that we need to have our Human Rights protected.
Hopefully this will landslide and stop this rediculous "Guilty until proven Innocent" attitude of Plod.
The've got what's coming to them.
I'm with lucozade on this one. Drink driving is bad but the cops do need to get away from this guilty until proven innocent routine.
Now all we need is for a victory in the right to silence (for gatsos) case.
Andy
tonyrec said: Its fair enought to pass comment on this particular case of alleged Drink Driving but as has been pointed out many times in the past.....you really do need to know the full and true facts of the incident.
Was he in the driving seat? Were the keys in the ignition? Was the engine running?
As for the comment made "why dont the police concentrate on other things instead of picking on drivers who may/or may not drive then i think that you might share a different view once you have dealt with Drunken Drivers who have caused death and hayhem on our roads.
I feel better for saying that and its a view that i believe most people would agree on.
Don't forget drink driving is the lowest of the low when it comes to driving offences and there is no excuse. if you are drinking then don't even go near a car. From my days in the Police I remember a sudden death where the owner of a car had left his misses and gone to the pub and then his lock up. Started the car to keep warm and had fallen asleep. Not a suicide but an accident, so if you've had a drink don't even venture near your car for everyones sake.
Lecture over.
lucozade said: I won't condone drink driving one little bit but I do firmly believe that we need to have our Human Rights protected.
Hopefully this will landslide and stop this rediculous "Guilty until proven Innocent" attitude of Plod.
The've got what's coming to them.
I dunno if I can agree with this...I certainly do in principle, but it always seems like it gets used by the priveleged few, or at the expense of a victim....
I say this, cos the only similar thing which immediately rings a bell is the burglar who was let off a rape he was proven guilty in because the police shouldnt have kept the DNA records which had been taken for a previous crime he'd been cleared of (spot a pattern??). I seem to see more of this sort of thing and less genuine hard luck stories winning out (which this may be of course).......who knows?!
lucozade said: Woohoo! about time too.
I won't condone drink driving one little bit but I do firmly believe that we need to have our Human Rights protected.
Hopefully this will landslide and stop this rediculous "Guilty until proven Innocent" attitude of Plod.
The've got what's coming to them.
I think thats a bit strong? so in your view, I could walk round a primary school with an uzi in a bag; because *until* I kill children, Im innocent?
if I guy is drunk in his car asleep, the potential for him drive in that state is vastly increased to potential if he were in a bed and the car keys nowhere near.
lucozade said: oh don't be so bloody stupid man!
Im afraid Im not being. I have been living in a pub for 20 years. I take keys off the drunks and order them taxis. They hotwire there cars rather than have the "hassle" of fetching it later.
If your in a car, your tempted to drive it when under the influence. I dont agree that you should let someone off, just because he hadnt killed someone while drink driving. He had put himself in a dangerous position, and deserved a rollocking.
same with the UZI comment. It is possible is so many ways to be a threat to society, and you should be nicked, even if you havent carried out a crime. In my eyes its the same. You threaten peoples lives, you go down. Ive lost too many friends from stupid drunks who think they know better. Even seen a death caused by a guy that fell asleep in his car, woke up cold in the early morning, and drove. Still drunk, killed someone.
If he got a taxi home, my friend would be alive. If the police found him asleep in the car during the night, my friend would be alive.
Or do you think his "human rights" were contravened? my friends' certainly were.
s2ooz said:
lucozade said: oh don't be so bloody stupid man!
Im afraid Im not being. I have been living in a pub for 20 years. I take keys off the drunks and order them taxis. They hotwire there cars rather than have the "hassle" of fetching it later.
If your in a car, your tempted to drive it when under the influence. I dont agree that you should let someone off, just because he hadnt killed someone while drink driving. He had put himself in a dangerous position, and deserved a rollocking.
same with the UZI comment. It is possible is so many ways to be a threat to society, and you should be nicked, even if you havent carried out a crime. In my eyes its the same. You threaten peoples lives, you go down. Ive lost too many friends from stupid drunks who think they know better. Even seen a death caused by a guy that fell asleep in his car, woke up cold in the early morning, and drove. Still drunk, killed someone.
If he got a taxi home, my friend would be alive. If the police found him asleep in the car during the night, my friend would be alive.
Or do you think his "human rights" were contravened? my friends' certainly were.
Look - you are totally taking the wrong end of the stick here. Put the drink driving issue to the side for a second.
The point I was making is that the cops have had the "guilty until proven innocence" bandwagon for too long. It has to stop. People should be allowed to have a fair trial - irrespective of what the accused crime is.
I DO NOT for one minute condone the behaviour of someone who chooses to sleep in their car drunk. They are silly and do deserve punishment. The point is simply that no matter what you have apparently done wrong you should be given a fair trial. As per Article 6 of the Human Rights Act.
That's it mate - nothing more.
Your approach to taking keys off people is obviously the right one - I take my hat off to you sir.
As for the UZI
- carry on - be my guest 
Im with Lucozade on this one. The cops have been getting far too cocky regarding the "guilty till proven innocent" situation.
I was once totally pissed outa my tree, i mean clattered, mangled even, and i slept in my car.
Even in my pixelated state, there was NO way i was ever gonna drive, in fact, i even posted the bloody keys thru the ex's letterbox, just so the cops couldnt do me for "being in charge"........
But had the keys been in the car, im sure theyd just have loved to nick me for going to sleep there.
Never mind the fact that id done nothing wrong, law wise.
Innocent till PROVEN GUILTY! Thats the law, not the other bloody way around.
Its getting to be like that film Miority Report, where they nick you for something they "think" youll do....big brothers and big nannies, im sick of this KRAP!!!!
I was once totally pissed outa my tree, i mean clattered, mangled even, and i slept in my car.
Even in my pixelated state, there was NO way i was ever gonna drive, in fact, i even posted the bloody keys thru the ex's letterbox, just so the cops couldnt do me for "being in charge"........
But had the keys been in the car, im sure theyd just have loved to nick me for going to sleep there.
Never mind the fact that id done nothing wrong, law wise.
Innocent till PROVEN GUILTY! Thats the law, not the other bloody way around.
Its getting to be like that film Miority Report, where they nick you for something they "think" youll do....big brothers and big nannies, im sick of this KRAP!!!!
S2ooz, one other point from me (I do not condone drink-driving either)
It is not illegal to drink, it is not illegal to drive, BUT, it is illegal to own or carry an UZI so your comparison is not valid in this instance.
I understand your point of view and also think the driver was stupid, but there is no proof of his intention to drive. I would say if he was not in the drivers seat, his keys were in his pocket or thrown into the back there is not intention to drive, if in the drivers seat with keys in his hand, on the floor (dropped) or in the ignition this would constitute proof of intention.
It is not illegal to drink, it is not illegal to drive, BUT, it is illegal to own or carry an UZI so your comparison is not valid in this instance.
I understand your point of view and also think the driver was stupid, but there is no proof of his intention to drive. I would say if he was not in the drivers seat, his keys were in his pocket or thrown into the back there is not intention to drive, if in the drivers seat with keys in his hand, on the floor (dropped) or in the ignition this would constitute proof of intention.
deltaf said:Its getting to be like that film Miority Report, where they nick you for something they "think" youll do....big brothers and big nannies, im sick of this KRAP!!!!
It already is with the Police Reform Act, allowing the coppers to have your car if they "think" its gonna annoy etc.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff