Are you in charge of a car if just sitting in the driver's seat with engine off?

Judas

samhuzz wrote: »

A friend of ours got prosecuted for drink driving for sitting in his car outside his own house putting the steering wheel lock on. He got disqualified for a year.

And why exactly was he doing that?


Overall the law is fine and perfectably enforcable in my view. In most cases those who go near a car when drunk are up to something.

Gavin83

I really don't see it as fair to charge you for something you 'may' potentially do and not for something you have actually done. It's all a bit minority report for my liking.

Whats next, a rape convinction for walking close to a girl in the street?

olly300

Judas wrote: »

And why exactly was he doing that?

Probably because he forgot to do it when he was sober and thought his car would be nicked.

Anyway thanks for remaining me not to start drinking at a friends' house, and then go and hunt for a CD in my car even though I'm staying over the night and most of the next day, or taking the bus home.

sebdangerfield

It's amazing how many people on this forum have friends who never lie and are harrassed by the Police. It's my understanding that there are some unscroupulous people who go out of their way to lie to the Police to get away with drink driving. Lucky none of us know bad people like that!

I'm interested to see how the people saying it's wrong to prosecute for drunk in charge would differentiate between the genuine drink drivers falling asleep at the wheel after driving home and the 'innocent' ones who had no intention of driving whilst drunk?

Gavin83

sebdangerfield wrote: »

I'm interested to see how the people saying it's wrong to prosecute for drunk in charge would differentiate between the genuine drink drivers falling asleep at the wheel after driving home and the 'innocent' ones who had no intention of driving whilst drunk?

I would say unless your directly caught in the act ie: actually driving your vehicle then you shouldn't be charged. The law is meant to be innocent until proven guilty after all and therefore innocence has to be presumed.

The idea that you can drive to work, go out for a few beers, start to walk home as you can't drive and still be done for drunk driving as you have car keys is ridiculous.

For the record I have no criminal convinctions, am a law abiding citizen but have previously been harrassed by police. They can be really unreasonable if you catch them in a bad mood.

sebdangerfield

Gavin83 wrote: »

I would say unless your directly caught in the act ie: actually driving your vehicle then you shouldn't be charged. The law is meant to be innocent until proven guilty after all and therefore innocence has to be presumed.

The idea that you can drive to work, go out for a few beers, start to walk home as you can't drive and still be done for drunk driving as you have car keys is ridiculous.

For the record I have no criminal convinctions, am a law abiding citizen but have previously been harrassed by police. They can be really unreasonable if you catch them in a bad mood.

But thats true for humans, not just Police.

I see your point. The problem is, if we use the 'unless you're directly caught in the act' scenario you give, we'd loose all the convictions of the drivers who;

1)Drink, drive home, park up and go into the house.
2)Drink, drive home, have an accident half way and run off.
3)Drink, drive home, make off from Police and are later caught walking through the street.

I can assure you the above build up around 50% of drink drive clients I have come through the doors to my practice. Thats alot of drink drivers allowed to continue to drive and potentially kill someone.

Also, I'd like to clarify; for a drunk in charge conviction there must be some probability of the defendant driving again whilst drunk. That means that there would be no chance of conviction in your other scenario where you walk home from the pub leaving your car. The law is very lintricate in this area and I won't bore you with the technicalities. My point is, it's not about having your keys on you whilst drunk but the 'mens rea' or 'criminal mind' showing your intent to drive. Obviously, if you;re drunk and hanging around your car with your car keys then the mens rea could be argued. Walking home with your keys, leaving your car at the pub does not.

I appreciate, alot of people on here tell some horror stories of injustice but I'd suggest we take it with a pinch of salt. In 15 years of criminal law defence I've never had a remotely dubious dd conviction go through. I put it down to the fact it's easier to blame the Police for being unfair than it is to admit we did something silly.

Hope this clears it up a bit.

Seb

thescouselander

sebdangerfield wrote: »

But thats true for humans, not just Police.

I see your point. The problem is, if we use the 'unless you're directly caught in the act' scenario you give, we'd loose all the convictions of the drivers who;

1)Drink, drive home, park up and go into the house.
2)Drink, drive home, have an accident half way and run off.
3)Drink, drive home, make off from Police and are later caught walking through the street.

I can assure you the above build up around 50% of drink drive clients I have come through the doors to my practice. Thats alot of drink drivers allowed to continue to drive and potentially kill someone.

Also, I'd like to clarify; for a drunk in charge conviction there must be some probability of the defendant driving again whilst drunk. That means that there would be no chance of conviction in your other scenario where you walk home from the pub leaving your car. The law is very lintricate in this area and I won't bore you with the technicalities. My point is, it's not about having your keys on you whilst drunk but the 'mens rea' or 'criminal mind' showing your intent to drive. Obviously, if you;re drunk and hanging around your car with your car keys then the mens rea could be argued. Walking home with your keys, leaving your car at the pub does not.

I appreciate, alot of people on here tell some horror stories of injustice but I'd suggest we take it with a pinch of salt. In 15 years of criminal law defence I've never had a remotely dubious dd conviction go through. I put it down to the fact it's easier to blame the Police for being unfair than it is to admit we did something silly.

Hope this clears it up a bit.

Seb

Well that seems to make sense. It still doesn't stop some police acting like knob heads it would seem. Clearly in my case they had no intention in charging anyone.

Lum

sebdangerfield wrote: »

1)Drink, drive home, park up and go into the house.

Being able to drive home drunk and then get away with it by answering the door with half a bottle of vodka in your hand is a myth. A proper blood test (you know, the one they're trying to do away with as it is expensive and produces accurate results) can determine that they had been drinking earlier, so no you don't lose this conviction.

2)Drink, drive home, have an accident half way and run off.

Well in my experience the police simply don't give a crap about hit and run any more so long as no-one died, they just foist it off onto the insurers. On the odd chance that the police do give a crap, see my answer to #1

3)Drink, drive home, make off from Police and are later caught walking through the street.

I don't really see how arresting based on a possible offence that they may commit in the future is really going to help with this one anyway.

I can assure you the above build up around 50% of drink drive clients I have come through the doors to my practice. Thats alot of drink drivers allowed to continue to drive and potentially kill someone.

I've known a few people who chose to drink and drive. They were all caught at the wheel of their cars and they all knew they were guilty and thus didn't bother to get a lawyer. I would suspect that this is a pretty common response and thus would distort your figures. No point throwing money away on a lawyer if you know you don't stand a chance, surely.

Also, I'd like to clarify; for a drunk in charge conviction there must be some probability of the defendant driving again whilst drunk. That means that there would be no chance of conviction in your other scenario where you walk home from the pub leaving your car. The law is very lintricate in this area and I won't bore you with the technicalities.

In any grey-area case the Magistrates court is pretty much a lottery anyway, so I'm not sure how much the technical details even matter any more.


Personally I think that not ruining the lives of people who had no intent of drinking and driving should be a higher priority than attempting to catch everyone who ever drove with a 0.81 breath test reading.

It's all about priorities, this sort of situation is yet another case of police going for the low hanging fruit because their priority is good statistics rather than to protect and serve the public.

See also: The mobile phone law, where people get 3 points and a £60 fine because they stopped in a layby, put the handbrake on, gearstick in neutral but left the engine running so that they could have heat/aircon while they make a quick call. The exact same punishment given to someone weaving across lanes on the M6 causing chaos because they have their phone clamped to their ear and are gabbing about Coronation Street for half an hour, or similar.

sebdangerfield

Lum, there are several big problems with your post.

Being able to drive home drunk and then get away with it by answering the door with half a bottle of vodka in your hand is a myth. A proper blood test (you know, the one they're trying to do away with as it is expensive and produces accurate results) can determine that they had been drinking earlier, so no you don't lose this conviction.

This is totally wrong. What you refer to is the 'hip flask' defence and works often. Police can do a count back in certain circumstances but this doesn't always negate the defence. Either way, I was replying to the post which stated people should only be arrested when they're caught inside the vehicle. This problem still stands in this situation as the offender is still not in the vehicle, regardles of your legal pointers.

Well in my experience the police simply don't give a crap about hit and run any more so long as no-one died, they just foist it off onto the insurers. On the odd chance that the police do give a crap, see my answer to #1

Great point. Shall we all just drink drive then?

I don't really see how arresting based on a possible offence that they may commit in the future is really going to help with this one anyway.

This shows why maybe you should gain some legal knowledge before posting on legal matters. Police can arrest for driving whilst under the influence or being drunk in charge. In the circumstances above, where the offenders are not driving but are in charge of the vehicle whilst drunk, they are arrested for drunk in charge. An offence commited then, not in the future.

Personally I think that not ruining the lives of people who had no intent of drinking and driving should be a higher priority than attempting to catch everyone who ever drove with a 0.81 breath test reading.

Again, a distinct lack of knowledge applied here. The mens rea must be proved that, beyond reasonable doubt, the offender must plan to drive again. If they had no intent on driving, the offence is not complete.

From you post, it comes accross quite clearly that you have an issue with the Police going for the easy route by taking the 'low hanging fruit'. This is just a matter of opinion, I'm perfectly happy with the Police picking up drunk people from cars or in cars. If you have such a problem with how the Police work, why not become one? You can even voulenteer if you'd be taking a pay cut. It seems you could do a better job and it's far more convincing to hear someone complain about something when they actually know about it. Quite similar to the rest of your post really.

Lum

If mens rea must be proved beyond reasonable doubt then why are we seeing stories here of people having their keys inspected and arrested if there is a car key on it, or people sleeping it off in their cars in sleeping bags being picked up.

Sure there may be valid legal defences for these and they may well get off with the "offence", after the hassle and expense of a court hearing and hiring someone like yourself to defend them*, but my post was not about the technical legalities but about moralities.

It is also worth noting that in some careers, including mine, even having an arrest on your record is enough to cause significant difficulties for the rest of your life. It delays security clearances, delays or prevents getting visas for certain countries (such as the USA) and so on. Fortunately I've never been arrested but it does affect friends and colleagues.

As a civilian I want the police to uphold the spirit of the law and protect the public, not go around enforcing pedantic legal clauses to harass people who are doing no harm. (eg. parking up in a layby to make a phone call, but leaving the aircon on) I expect that sort of behaviour from a traffic warden.


* This assumes they can even afford a lawyer, the last government did rather a lot to undermine legal aid for motoring offences