Arrested for sitting in car drunk

DUTR

Nasqueron wrote: »

That is useful to know, shame it's guilty until you prove your innocence in this situation - if you are genuinely trying to do the right thing of not drink and drive and for whatever reason you can't leave the car, other than leaving the keys with someone else and hoping it doesn't lock you in...

What could that reason be?
I'm not nit picking.... I go for afternoon tea, find the car won't start, so I go and have a 5 units of alcohol whilst I wait for assistance :eek:

Car_54

Nasqueron wrote: »

That is useful to know, shame it's guilty until you prove your innocence in this situation - if you are genuinely trying to do the right thing of not drink and drive and for whatever reason you can't leave the car, other than leaving the keys with someone else and hoping it doesn't lock you in...

Not really: the prosecution have to prove your guilt, as in any criminal trial.

Assuming they can, because you can't cast reasonable doubt on their evidence, you then have a second bite at the cherry in the shape of the statutory defence (no likelihood of driving). But this time the onus of proof is on you. That doesn't seem unreasonable.

Swipe

AndyMc..... wrote: »

What's stopping you taking them off the wheel or out of the boot when still drunk?

Nothing, but if the keys are hidden on top of the rear wheel and the police can't find keys on the person or in the vehicle, then they can't be arrested. Probably a better idea to hide them under a rock at the side of the road though as I'm sure old school coppers are wise to the old on top of the wheel trick.

agrinnall

Car_54 wrote: »

It is an offence to use any vehicle on a footway, whether powered or not. No grey area there.

Really? Are you saying that even if you have a dropped kerb it is illegal to drive over the footway between the road and your own property? If so why aren't millions of people being prosecuted for the offence every day?

Car_54

agrinnall wrote: »

Really? Are you saying that even if you have a dropped kerb it is illegal to drive over the footway between the road and your own property? If so why aren't millions of people being prosecuted for the offence every day?

No, I was responding to a specific post about wheeling a motorbike along the pavement.

There is an exemption as explained in HC Rule 145:

"You MUST NOT drive on or over a pavement, footpath or bridleway except to gain lawful access to property, or in the case of an emergency."

Nasqueron

DUTR wrote: »

What could that reason be?
I'm not nit picking.... I go for afternoon tea, find the car won't start, so I go and have a 5 units of alcohol whilst I wait for assistance :eek:

Let's say you come out of the pub and find the car won't start or you realise you probably had too much to drink and think better of it, too far for a taxi, no money for rooms, who knows. You can sleep in the car to prevent it being broken into / stolen.

Car_54 wrote: »

Not really: the prosecution have to prove your guilt, as in any criminal trial.

Assuming they can, because you can't cast reasonable doubt on their evidence, you then have a second bite at the cherry in the shape of the statutory defence (no likelihood of driving). But this time the onus of proof is on you. That doesn't seem unreasonable.

If the police assume you are going to drive and arrest you on the charge of drunk in charge of a vehicle just because you are sleeping in a car, off the road, with the keys not on your person - all of which cast reasonable doubt on that charge - then you are saying you have to prove reasonable doubt not the police to prove you were going to drive? A person taking the very reasonable steps to ensure they can't drive and indicating this by taking the keys off their person and putting them well away from themselves, where they have to make a proactive choice to drive (get out of car and collect the keys) should be reasonable doubt. Whether it means leaving the keys with the pub or on the back wheel (or under a rock lol) that should be sufficient.

Car_54

Nasqueron wrote: »

If the police assume you are going to drive and arrest you on the charge of drunk in charge of a vehicle just because you are sleeping in a car, off the road, with the keys not on your person - all of which cast reasonable doubt on that charge - then you are saying you have to prove reasonable doubt not the police to prove you were going to drive? A person taking the very reasonable steps to ensure they can't drive and indicating this by taking the keys off their person and putting them well away from themselves, where they have to make a proactive choice to drive (get out of car and collect the keys) should be reasonable doubt. Whether it means leaving the keys with the pub or on the back wheel (or under a rock lol) that should be sufficient.

The police don't have to prove you were going to drive, just that you were drunk and in charge of the vehicle.



You can claim that there was no likelihood of your driving, and give evidence that the keys were elsewhere. It is up to the court whether to accept that.

TooManyPoints

The police don't have to prove you were going to drive, just that you were drunk and in charge of the vehicle.

Indeed. They don't have to assume you were going to drive or even have a suspicion that you were. "Driving" is not an element of the offence.

A "statutory defence" is a one which is enshrined in the relevant law. There is one in the law that says you must provide the driver's details when your car is detected (say) speeding. It says if you did not know who was driving and could not find out using reasonable diligence then you shall not be convicted. The offence is complete when you fail to provide the driver's details within the 28 days allowed and without the statutory defence you would be convicted. If you use the statutory defence the police do not have to prove that you did not know and could not find out. You do.

Arklight

Only in Britain can you be prosecuted for drink driving while doing the exact opposite.

Mercdriver

Arklight wrote: »

Only in Britain can you be prosecuted for drink driving while doing the exact opposite.

What codswallop.

DD is a different charge entirely. Drunk while in charge is different and is a lesser charge. If I remember correctly a ban is not automatic minimum 10 points.