Drunk in charge

IAmATeaf

IAmATeaf

IAmATeaf

Soldato
Joined
3 Apr 2007
Posts
7,288
Location
South of the Watford Gap!
Last week some y-front jockey started blaring music out at around 3 in the morning. He was in the road beside my house so couldn't see who it was. Half an hour later the police arrived so being a nosey neighbour I stood next to my bathroom and listened in. The policeman asked him what he was doing, then breathalysed him, he failed and a wagon arrived to take him away. His arguement was that he lived just a few doors away and he wasn't driving. Saw the car parked there in the morning and yesterday noticed the same car on a driveway.

Question is will the guy get done for drink driving? He was acting like an idiot and I have no sympathy for him and have read of a few stories of people being arrested but have no idea if the prosecution would be pursued.
 
I think as he was in the car with the keys, it would be considered in charge of the vehicle, who's to say if the police didn't arrive he wouldn't have driven off, or he didn't just pull up.
 
I reckon he drove and parked up there that night. No way would you logically get back to your place and think hey let's go in the car and wake everybody up?
 
Road Traffic Act says thus...

5 Driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle with alcohol concentration above prescribed limit.

(1)If a person—

(a)drives or attempts to drive a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, or

(b)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 is guilty of an offence.
(2)It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1)(b) above to prove that at the time he is alleged to have committed the offence the circumstances were such that there was no likelihood of his driving the vehicle whilst the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine remained likely to exceed the prescribed limit.

(3)The court may, in determining whether there was such a likelihood as is mentioned in subsection (2) above, disregard any injury to him and any damage to the vehicle.
Click to expand...

Essentially if he's drunk and stood outside his car with the keys in his hand...then he's drunk and in charge of a motor vehicle , and its up to him to prove that there is no likelihood of him driving. Was the music he was playing from his car stereo do you think? Fairly likely he would be charged in such circumstances I'd have thought...
 
I know someone who was done for sleeping in their car in a carpark overnight. In the passenger seat asleep - tap on window, it was the police. Because he had the keys, he was in charge of the vehicle so they breathalised him (failed) and carted him off.
 
Archeum said:
And were they charged?
Click to expand...



Almost certainly. And almost certainly found guilty. The law is clear, and there's plenty of Leading Cases. If you are a position to be able to drive your car, then you are in charge of it. If you leave the keys with someone else, then you usually get away with it. But if you have the keys, you are in charge. After all, what's to stop you waking up after an hour, deciding that you're sober, and driving off?
 
Whilst not the same reason, any time I pull over to the side of the road to make a phone call or the like, I'll take my keys out and put them in front of my dashcam. Just that little bit extra to show I'm not using a mobile whilst driving.
 
Kuros said:
Whilst not the same reason, any time I pull over to the side of the road to make a phone call or the like, I'll take my keys out and put them in front of my dashcam. Just that little bit extra to show I'm not using a mobile whilst driving.
Click to expand...

I'm obviously missing some sarcastic overtone in this post right?
 
Will said:
Road Traffic Act says thus...



Essentially if he's drunk and stood outside his car with the keys in his hand...then he's drunk and in charge of a motor vehicle , and its up to him to prove that there is no likelihood of him driving. Was the music he was playing from his car stereo do you think? Fairly likely he would be charged in such circumstances I'd have thought...
Click to expand...

While obviously drunk driving should be frowned upon. It does seem a bit much to assume that just because they have the keys they are going to drive. Perfectly possible that someone goes out for a drink with car, decides they've drunk too much to drive safely and just decides to sleep in car until morning. They have not intended to drive while drunk in that case in my view anyway.

Also if you drink at home and are drunk and have your car keys on you should you be deemed drunk in charge? After all your car is just outside your house, it is as easily accessible as standing outside your car or sleeping in it.

I would have thought if you intended to drive while drunk you would not be sleeping in the car in the first place.
 
Orion21 said:
While obviously drunk driving should be frowned upon. It does seem a bit much to assume that just because they have the keys they are going to drive. Perfectly possible that someone goes out for a drink with car, decides they've drunk too much to drive safely and just decides to sleep in car until morning. They have not intended to drive while drunk in that case in my view anyway.

Also if you drink at home and are drunk and have your car keys on you should you be deemed drunk in charge? After all your car is just outside your house, it is as easily accessible as standing outside your car or sleeping in it.

I would have thought if you intended to drive while drunk you would not be sleeping in the car in the first place.
Click to expand...

I used to think this too... but what's to stop drunk you thinking "I don't feel that drunk, I'll just drive home". Or what if that person was drink driving and pulled over the have a nap? There are so many possibilities that it's probably best just to charge people for it.

I'm posting this after a few beers. I probably could drive my car now but how can I be sure that I'd be driving as I would if I was sober?
 
Meridian said:
Almost certainly. And almost certainly found guilty. The law is clear, and there's plenty of Leading Cases. If you are a position to be able to drive your car, then you are in charge of it. If you leave the keys with someone else, then you usually get away with it. But if you have the keys, you are in charge. After all, what's to stop you waking up after an hour, deciding that you're sober, and driving off?
Click to expand...


They need to prove, A. That the intention to drive was there and B. I'd have been over the limit at the time I was supposedly going to drive.

I can only imagine those without a defence or actually had the keys on their person or in the ignition at the time are found guilty.
 
nutcase_1uk said:
I know someone who was done for sleeping in their car in a carpark overnight. In the passenger seat asleep - tap on window, it was the police. Because he had the keys, he was in charge of the vehicle so they breathalised him (failed) and carted him off.
Click to expand...

The couple of times I've slept in the car drunk I've been in the back with the seats down, with a sleeping bag and keys tossed in the passenger footwell. I hope this would be enough for a magistrate to believe I had no intention of driving before I was sober.
 
Archeum said:
..actually had the keys on their person...
Click to expand...

But that's the point isn't it. Having the keys doesn't imply that a person intends to drive the vehicle, and potentially cause harm. Having the potential to do so shouldn't constitute a crime..

I sometimes have my keys on me while I'm eating and drinking at a bbq, in a front garden. Because my house keys, car keys, remote for the gates, etc, are all on the same keyring. So I like to keep them with me. If then my car's parked 20 meters down the drive on the roadside, should I be punished before putting lives at risk?, by virtue of the possibility that I could if the mood took me?... It kind of sounds that way doesn't it.

That means, by the same logic, a chef in a kitchen holding a knife is guilty of manslaughter (he didn't do it. But he could have!), every driver is guilty of speeding (that pedal!, it's there to be pressed, and you could very well push it too far!). Every priest who holds a child's head above water (eek!), every engineer has the potential to sabotage a component. And that saw you're using to chop down that tree in your back garden?.. Slow down killer.. blah blah..

Every person who has ever had the means and potential to cause any harm, in any plausible way, ever...

Is that not a ridiculous concept?. Because it seems to me that the ideology ingrained within the law should be almost universal throughout all of the individual laws. Otherwise we have an inconsistent system that springs mixed messages, and mixed understanding. If there's no consistent logic, there's no sense of right and wrong for the average person to cultivate and live by..

So are you pre-guilty of everything?, or just this oddball thing?. Nyeh
 
Last edited:
Archeum said:
They need to prove, A. That the intention to drive was there
Click to expand...

No they don't. I think you mean: "I wish that they needed to prove that the intention to drive was there." The offence is, as has already been pointed out: "control of the vehicle". Under your rule, I could be about start the car up, see a police officer, and then remove the key. Under your rules it would be impossible to prove intent.
 
This law is quite often seen as 'harsh', but I think the intent of the lawmakers was that this is a preventative offence - one designed to act as a deterrent by people who actually know the law, but also to enable the police to arrest somebody lest they commit a much more damaging or dangerous offence (actually driving whilst unfit, or with excess blood alcohol).

Go and examine the law for 'Going equipped' if you want to see another law that appears quite draconian but in practice enables the police to prevent quite a lot of 'serious' crime (robbery, theft, burglary) from happening in the first place because they can arrest for the lesser offence.
 
Last edited:
My understanding is the law is fairly clear and quite harsh in this respect ... but how does it work with a camper van? You can't drink ever under any circumstances if you plan to sleep in your camper?!
 
The individual circumstances would come into it in any scenario.... For the camper van, are you parked up at the side of a road, for example, or have you paid to park overnight on a proper pitch (thus showing that there is little likelihood that you intend to drive)? Is everything packed away inside the van or do you have tables and chairs still set up outside etc?

A cop will weigh up the circumstances in his mind before choosing to arrest for this (especially given the necessity for arrest criteria (PACE code G) that now must apply for an arrest to be lawful) even where the law is fairly prescriptive. A cop does not go out to work with the intention of nicking anyone he comes across for every single technical offence no matter what the circumstances are... Spoiling someone's evening parked up on a camp site for example, when they've had a couple of beers and don't intend to drive even though technically they have the means to do so, do the circumstances warrant arrest? A police officer will weigh this up, words of advice often suffices. There is still an element of discretion as to what an officer choses to do with many given scenarios regardless of what the law says. Is an arrest proportionate, legal, necessary, ethical?

A guy causing a noise nuisance at 3am in a populated area though like the guy mentioned in the OP though.... Well the public would usually expect the police to do something about that, if it means locking up the guy for being drunk in charge then so be it...
 
Last edited:
The music was from the car stereo as it was the sub that woke me. Now that youve said that wouldnt the engine need to be running to power the amp and sub? So maybe they have got him "bang to rights".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom