Arrested for sitting in car drunk

Nasqueron

I could be wrong, so don't take as gospel but I have heard a recommendation to leave the keys on a rear wheel if you are sleeping in the car, not sure how it would work with keyless though, maybe even chuck the keys in the boot lol

AndyMc.....

Nasqueron wrote: »

I could be wrong, so don't take as gospel but I have heard a recommendation to leave the keys on a rear wheel if you are sleeping in the car, not sure how it would work with keyless though, maybe even chuck the keys in the boot lol

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

bugslett

Andy_L wrote: »

If the driver is at/near their driving hours limit it supports the statutory defence of not planning to drive the vehicle

Mercdriver wrote: »

That might depend on how perfect their tachographs normally are. They would need to be perfectly in line for a considerable time for this to be convincing.

I run a haulage company and the majority of our drivers achieve 100% on their tachograph. Of those who don't, we are talking minor infringements of something like two minutes over their time in months of driving and we aren't exceptional as a company.

Some of our drivers weekend in their trucks if they are far enough away and I certainly don't expect them to stick to tea during their 45 hours off, though I'd hope they'd be sensible.

OscarFoxtrot

The defence is to show no intention to drive.


In the past this has been challenged successfully with witness statements. As he was out with a friend, a statement would help from them.


Remember the case must be proved beyond reasonable doubt; so raising even some minor points can create that doubt

Car_54

Andy_L wrote: »

If the driver is at/near their driving hours limit it supports the statutory defence of not planning to drive the vehicle

The stat defence doesn't involve planning. It is "if he proves that at the material time the circumstances were such that there was no likelihood of his driving it so long as he remained unfit to drive through drink or drugs."



Planning would be a very poor test, given a drunk's inability to follw plans.

shaun_from_Africa

Andy_L wrote: »

If the driver is at/near their driving hours limit it supports the statutory defence of not planning to drive the vehicle

And we all know that truck drivers never exceed their maximum driving hours.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-15681980

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41361351

bugslett

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

And we all know that truck drivers never exceed their maximum driving hours.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-15681980

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41361351

And those are the exceptions. Myself and my two main subcontractors run squeaky clean. I suspect that people like Stobarts/Downton/Wincanton etc will make sure that they do so.

A great many companies, small and large alike, spend a lot of time and effort in ensuring that we plan journeys that can be completed legally and that the tachograph hours and fully complied with.

If you ever get a bunch of Operators together, the biggest moans are the UK cowboy operators and the poor driving standards of some other EU countries.

foxy-stoat

OscarFoxtrot wrote: »

The defence is to show no intention to drive.


In the past this has been challenged successfully with witness statements. As he was out with a friend, a statement would help from them.


Remember the case must be proved beyond reasonable doubt; so raising even some minor points can create that doubt

I dont think a flat battery will show no intent. Try the other extreme, no engine or gearbox so no way of driving, but I believe it would still be an offence if you were being towed, or about to be towed by another vehicle, you still in control of the one you are sitting in.

The no breathe/blood test at the station is where I would be focusing defense on.

TooManyPoints

The lack of an evidential breath test at the police station puts paid to any conviction for being in charge whilst over the prescribed alcohol limit. A roadside breath test is not sufficient evidence. However, your brother should check what he has been charged with. There is an alternative offence of being in charge of a vehicle when under the influence of drink or drugs. The first of these two (over the prescribed limit) requires no proof of impairment but proof of the alcohol level. The second (under the influence) requires no proof of level but proof of impairment.

Both have a statutory defence which is this:

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.

To take advantage of that defence your brother has to prove that there was no likelihood of him driving until he was sober.

As both these offences can carry a custodial sentence your brother will be able to seek the advice of the duty solicitor before his first appearance in court (but not for any subsequent appearances). He should do so and get the solicitor to clarify what charge he faces. If it is “over the prescribed limit” he should ask the solicitor to find out what evidence they intend to use to prove that he was (because from what you say they don’t have any that will prove the matter to the court’s satisfaction). If it is "under the influence" he should ask the same question because simply being over the limit (as indicated by a roadside breath test) is not proof of impairment. He can also ask him if he is likely to be able to take advantage of the statutory defence if necessary.

OscarFoxtrot

foxy-stoat wrote: »

I dont think a flat battery will show no intent. Try the other extreme, no engine or gearbox so no way of driving, but I believe it would still be an offence if you were being towed, or about to be towed by another vehicle, you still in control of the one you are sitting in.

The no breathe/blood test at the station is where I would be focusing defense on.

Yes but that isn't what happened here.


There was no intention to drive, the statement is just more evidence of that. It's all going to create reasonable doubt.


- I do agree about the no breath test; I just don't believe the police would miss something so obvious