Offense Code 125 - £100 + 3 points

[matt_fsr]

That's not actually a Police vehicle, it's a vehicle that is used for films and TV that should have covered up the Police signage when on a public road.

Ah that's good to know.

So are they going to get done for:

a) Driving whilst using a handheld phone, and
b) Impersonating a Police officer/vehicle?

 

[Burnsy2023]

I find it very disturbing that it's possible to receive a criminal record, driving ban, potential jail sentence and up to £2.5k fine with zero evidence, because from the way you describe it, being drunk and within proximity of your car and its keys would be enough for a charge.

As a statutory defence, it's up to the defendant to convince the court that they had no intention to drive, not for the CPS to prove that you would.

 

[Haggisman]

As a statutory defence, it's up to the defendant to convince the court that they had no intention to drive, not for the CPS to prove that you would.

Exactly. What's to stop a copper spotting a drunk guy entering his house with a car parked on the drive and deciding to arrest him for being drunk in charge? There's not really a way to prove a lack of intent to do something, so basically you'd be screwed.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Exactly. What's to stop a copper spotting a drunk guy entering his house with a car parked on the drive and deciding to arrest him for being drunk in charge? There's not really a way to prove a lack of intent to do something, so basically you'd be screwed.

I don't think any custody sgt would authorise a charge with those facts.

 

[Haggisman]

I don't think any custody sgt would authorise a charge with those facts.

It doesn't really seem to have anything to do with facts, or any kind of evidence at all. Cop says "he was stumbling around and trying to get into the car" you say "no I wasn't" maybe it's the way you're explaining it, but it sounds like you could be charged purely on that basis, because it's impossible to prove that you weren't intending to drive.