Arrested for sitting in car drunk

DUTR

neilmcl wrote: »

I take it you missed this bit:

Thanks for that, it appears that the station only require either breath urine or blood sample, but it is not clear cut and once again, a situation where prevention is better than cure.

Car_54

TooManyPoints wrote: »

But that isn't what he's got to do. If he wants to take advantage of the statutory defence ("no intention to drive", etc.) he has a greater burden. The onus shifts to him to prove his defence "on the balance of probabilities" (i.e. more likely to be true than not). Whilst not as high a standard as "beyond reasonable doubt" (which is what the prosecution has to show) he has to do more than cast reasonable doubt.
.

But the stat defence is nothing to do with intention. It is "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."

I'd suggest it might be difficult for him to prove that, especially as he would have had no objective means of determining his fitness. Unless perhaps he had a breathalyser in the car.

Nasqueron

AndyMc..... wrote: »

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

Nothing but as per Sheldrake vs CPS 2003 they need to prove you intended to drive. If the keys are not on you then it helps you show you weren't. In the OP scenario perhaps leaving the keys in the pub might have worked.

TooManyPoints

But the stat defence is nothing to do with intention. It is "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."

I'd suggest it might be difficult for him to prove that, especially as he would have had no objective means of determining his fitness. Unless perhaps he had a breathalyser in the car.

Agreed. My error, "likelihood" not "intention". But he faces the same problem to the same standard of proof. It is a difficult defence to run precisely for the reason you cite - he may know when the likelihood of him next driving may be and may be able to convince the court of that. But he has no realistic way of knowing whether he will be either (a) under the prescribed limit (if charged with excess alcohol) or (b) no longer under the influence (if he is charged with that).

I encountered an interesting case a while back. The driver had been caught asleep in his car with the engine running. He convinced the court that he was spending the night there, had the engine on to keep warm and was not going to drive until 8am the next morning when parking restrictions came into force where he was parked. What he could not do was show how intoxicated he would be by that time (he was charged with in charge whilst over the prescribed limit). As he was unrepresented and unaware of his responsibility to show that fact, the Justices adjourned the case to allow him to take advice. Before the next hearing he disclosed to the CPS an expert's report which showed that the level of alcohol would have reduced to a legal level by 8am and the CPS discontinued the prosecution.

Arklight

parking_question_chap wrote: »

Whole story seems a bit far fetched to me.

It may or may not be, but there is plenty of precedent for plod nicking people doing the sensible thing and sleeping off an unexpected night out in their cars, rather than driving them home.

Of course it's a pretty easy nick for their arrest targets, asleep in car, probably over limit, actively trying not to break the law therefore probably won't give them any trouble.

If you find yourself in this position the best thing to do to stay safe is to call them and say that someone is trying to break into your car. Should ensure you won't see a sight of a blue light in that location for the next 36 hours.

Aretnap

Nasqueron wrote: »

Nothing but as per Sheldrake vs CPS 2003 they need to prove you intended to drive.

You're 15 years out of date there I'm afraid. In 2003 the High Court did indeed rule that (in essence) it was for the prosecution to prove that there was a likelihood of the defendant driving while drunk. However, that ruling was overturned the following year by the House of Lords.



https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2004/43.html


It's very definitely for the defendant to prove (on the balance of probabilities) that there was no likelihood (which is different from intention) of him actually driving while drunk. Putting his keys in his other pocket or in the boot of the car does nothing to help him prove that - if he did decide to drive he could easily pick them up whenever he wanted to. However, giving them to a responsible person who won't give them back until you've sobered up might help establish the defence.

Mercdriver

Arklight wrote: »

It may or may not be, but there is plenty of precedent for plod nicking people doing the sensible thing and sleeping off an unexpected night out in their cars, rather than driving them home.

Of course it's a pretty easy nick for their arrest targets, asleep in car, probably over limit, actively trying not to break the law therefore probably won't give them any trouble.

If you find yourself in this position the best thing to do to stay safe is to call them and say that someone is trying to break into your car. Should ensure you won't see a sight of a blue light in that location for the next 36 hours.

Nothing like a bit of inaccurate irrelevant anti police fervour to liven up a discussion. Next you will be saying oink. Grow up.

family4tunes

I believe if the keys are in the ignition and /or present on the person sitting in the drivers seat then he can be charged with being DUI.

Although not related, my friend was prosecuted for driving his motorbike on the pavement without wearing a helmet (2 actual charges). Although he explained he was pushing it to a friends house just yards away to complete a repair, and that half the engine was missing so it couldn't be ridden anyway. he was still done, and because he was pushing it without wearing a helmet, he was done for that too.

He argued his case, but it was ruled that the front wheel of his motorcycle should have been elevated whilst being transported regardless of running condition, so he was prosecuted for both offences. The morale being, if you have a jobs worth copper looking to pump up his figures his word and the law counts without any grey lines or discretions being given.

Your bro was in charge of a vehicle, he was over the limit and in procession of the ignition keys. Whether the car could start or not is irrelevant I'm afraid. It can be used in mitigation if provable, but the law states its an offence regardless so he will be penalised unfortunately.

Car_54

family4tunes wrote: »

I believe if the keys are in the ignition and /or present on the person sitting in the drivers seat then he can be charged with being DUI.

Although not related, my friend was prosecuted for driving his motorbike on the pavement without wearing a helmet (2 actual charges). Although he explained he was pushing it to a friends house just yards away to complete a repair, and that half the engine was missing so it couldn't be ridden anyway. he was still done, and because he was pushing it without wearing a helmet, he was done for that too.

He argued his case, but it was ruled that the front wheel of his motorcycle should have been elevated whilst being transported regardless of running condition, so he was prosecuted for both offences. The morale being, if you have a jobs worth copper looking to pump up his figures his word and the law counts without any grey lines or discretions being given.

Your bro was in charge of a vehicle, he was over the limit and in procession of the ignition keys. Whether the car could start or not is irrelevant I'm afraid. It can be used in mitigation if provable, but the law states its an offence regardless so he will be penalised unfortunately.

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

Nasqueron

Aretnap wrote: »

You're 15 years out of date there I'm afraid. In 2003 the High Court did indeed rule that (in essence) it was for the prosecution to prove that there was a likelihood of the defendant driving while drunk. However, that ruling was overturned the following year by the House of Lords.



https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2004/43.html


It's very definitely for the defendant to prove (on the balance of probabilities) that there was no likelihood (which is different from intention) of him actually driving while drunk. Putting his keys in his other pocket or in the boot of the car does nothing to help him prove that - if he did decide to drive he could easily pick them up whenever he wanted to. However, giving them to a responsible person who won't give them back until you've sobered up might help establish the defence.

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...