Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • pogg000
    • By pogg000 4th Oct 17, 6:33 PM
    • 470Posts
    • 1,940Thanks
    pogg000
    Road side sleeping in a camper van
    • #1
    • 4th Oct 17, 6:33 PM
    Road side sleeping in a camper van 4th Oct 17 at 6:33 PM
    Is it legal to sleep in a camper van on the road side for a short length of time?
    lbm 11/06/12 dept total 11499.47
Page 2
    • Warwick Hunt
    • By Warwick Hunt 7th Oct 17, 2:29 PM
    • 423 Posts
    • 214 Thanks
    Warwick Hunt
    You can say it as many times as you like but it's still incorrect.
    The CPS do not have to show anything.
    The person in charge of the vehicle is required to prove that there was no likelihood of them driving the vehicle.

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/5
    Originally posted by George Michael
    Have you ever sought pre-charge advice from CPS for drunk in charge?
    • George Michael
    • By George Michael 7th Oct 17, 2:38 PM
    • 2,856 Posts
    • 3,855 Thanks
    George Michael
    Have you ever sought pre-charge advice from CPS for drunk in charge?
    Originally posted by Warwick Hunt
    No.
    Have you ever read the RTA 1988 and admitted that your earlier statement was incorrect?
    The written law is perfectly clear in stating that it is the responsibility of the accused person to prove that they were not going to drive and not as you stated, for the police to prove that they were.
    • Mercdriver
    • By Mercdriver 7th Oct 17, 2:53 PM
    • 1,406 Posts
    • 942 Thanks
    Mercdriver
    No.
    Have you ever read the RTA 1988 and admitted that your earlier statement was incorrect?
    The written law is perfectly clear in stating that it is the responsibility of the accused person to prove that they were not going to drive and not as you stated, for the police to prove that they were.
    Originally posted by George Michael
    prove in what sense?

    It is to the extent of balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. So if a defendant was relaxing in the back of a motorhome, heater on, snack in place, and a reasonable expectation, that they were going to sleep in the vehicle in that vehicle's position, then I would say that the proof has been met. Even more so if everyone is ready for bed.
    • nicechap
    • By nicechap 7th Oct 17, 4:00 PM
    • 795 Posts
    • 1,852 Thanks
    nicechap
    Food for thought for the enterprising http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/someone-advertising-parked-van-gumtree-577521
    Quote was right and saw into the future.
    • Warwick Hunt
    • By Warwick Hunt 7th Oct 17, 4:20 PM
    • 423 Posts
    • 214 Thanks
    Warwick Hunt
    prove in what sense?

    It is to the extent of balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. So if a defendant was relaxing in the back of a motorhome, heater on, snack in place, and a reasonable expectation, that they were going to sleep in the vehicle in that vehicle's position, then I would say that the proof has been met. Even more so if everyone is ready for bed.
    Originally posted by Mercdriver
    In a criminal court all the defendant needs to do is cast reasonably doubt.
    • Warwick Hunt
    • By Warwick Hunt 7th Oct 17, 4:22 PM
    • 423 Posts
    • 214 Thanks
    Warwick Hunt
    No.
    Have you ever read the RTA 1988 and admitted that your earlier statement was incorrect?
    The written law is perfectly clear in stating that it is the responsibility of the accused person to prove that they were not going to drive and not as you stated, for the police to prove that they were.
    Originally posted by George Michael
    Yes, I have read it but in a practical sense if a suspect gives a reasonable explanation in interview it wouldn't get to charge unless the police can show they were likely to drive whilst over the limit.
    • George Michael
    • By George Michael 7th Oct 17, 6:03 PM
    • 2,856 Posts
    • 3,855 Thanks
    George Michael
    In a criminal court all the defendant needs to do is cast reasonably doubt.
    Originally posted by Warwick Hunt
    At last. I think you finally get it.


    Yes, the defendant needs to cast doubt.
    This is not the same as saying "The police would have to prove the likelihood to drive whilst over the limit".
    The CPS do not have to prove anything. However small the burden of proof, the onus is still on the defendant to provide proof of their innocence.
    • Warwick Hunt
    • By Warwick Hunt 7th Oct 17, 6:15 PM
    • 423 Posts
    • 214 Thanks
    Warwick Hunt
    At last. I think you finally get it.


    Yes, the defendant needs to cast doubt.
    This is not the same as saying "The police would have to prove the likelihood to drive whilst over the limit".
    The CPS do not have to prove anything. However small the burden of proof, the onus is still on the defendant to provide proof of their innocence.
    Originally posted by George Michael
    If a not guilty plea is entered they do.
    • maddogb
    • By maddogb 8th Oct 17, 12:32 PM
    • 464 Posts
    • 73 Thanks
    maddogb
    "a defence" is not "the only defence"
    • Car 54
    • By Car 54 8th Oct 17, 1:00 PM
    • 2,305 Posts
    • 1,484 Thanks
    Car 54
    If a not guilty plea is entered they do.
    Originally posted by Warwick Hunt
    The offence is complete if the accused was incapable and in charge of the vehicle, and that is all the CPS have to prove: they do not have to address the likelihood of driving.

    As said, the Act places the onus on the accused to prove the absence of likelihood, to the satisfaction of the court.
    Last edited by Car 54; 08-10-2017 at 1:01 PM. Reason: splng chck
    • Warwick Hunt
    • By Warwick Hunt 8th Oct 17, 1:03 PM
    • 423 Posts
    • 214 Thanks
    Warwick Hunt
    The offence is complete if the accused was incapable and in charge of the vehicle, and that is all the CPS have to prove: they do not have to address the likelihood of driving.

    As said, the Act places the onus on the accused to prove the absence of likelihood, to the satisfaction of the court.
    Originally posted by Car 54
    Exactly have to prove the elements of the offence for a not guilty.

    If however the suspect gives a good enough defence in interview it won't go to court.
    • Clive Woody
    • By Clive Woody 8th Oct 17, 11:44 PM
    • 4,392 Posts
    • 5,005 Thanks
    Clive Woody
    Not sure how your insurance would work...assuming you have no permanent address and would be living in your vehicle.
    Rugby Union - The Greatest Game
    • Car 54
    • By Car 54 9th Oct 17, 6:02 AM
    • 2,305 Posts
    • 1,484 Thanks
    Car 54
    Not sure how your insurance would work...assuming you have no permanent address and would be living in your vehicle.
    Originally posted by Clive Woody
    It must be possible. Surely all those travellers' vehicles are fully taxed, insured and MOTd?
    • Warwick Hunt
    • By Warwick Hunt 9th Oct 17, 7:43 AM
    • 423 Posts
    • 214 Thanks
    Warwick Hunt
    It must be possible. Surely all those travellers' vehicles are fully taxed, insured and MOTd?
    Originally posted by Car 54
    Travellers have a postal address, usually a permanent site or house where one traveller lives.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

144Posts Today

2,177Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @LordsEconCom: On Tuesday Martin Lewis, Hannah Morrish & Shakira Martin gave evidence to the Cttee. Read the full transcript here: https?

  • Ta ta for now. Half term's starting, so I'm exchanging my MoneySavingExpert hat for one that says Daddy in big letters. See you in a week.

  • RT @thismorning: Can @MartinSLewis' deals save YOU cash? ???? https://t.co/igbHCwzeiN

  • Follow Martin