Road side sleeping in a camper van

Options
13

Comments

  • George_Michael
    George_Michael Posts: 4,251 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Options
    Warwick_Hunt wrote: »
    Have you ever sought pre-charge advice from CPS for drunk in charge?
    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
    Mercdriver Posts: 3,898 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Options
    George_Michael wrote: »
    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.

    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
    nicechap Posts: 2,852 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Options
    Food for thought for the enterprising http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/someone-advertising-parked-van-gumtree-577521
    Originally Posted by shortcrust
    "Contact the Ministry of Fairness....If sufficient evidence of unfairness is discovered you’ll get an apology, a permanent contract with backdated benefits, a ‘Let’s Make it Fair!’ tshirt and mug, and those guilty of unfairness will be sent on a Fairness Awareness course."
  • Warwick_Hunt
    Warwick_Hunt Posts: 1,179 Forumite
    Options
    Mercdriver wrote: »
    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.

    In a criminal court all the defendant needs to do is cast reasonably doubt.
  • Warwick_Hunt
    Warwick_Hunt Posts: 1,179 Forumite
    Options
    George_Michael wrote: »
    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.

    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
    George_Michael Posts: 4,251 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Options
    Warwick_Hunt wrote: »
    In a criminal court all the defendant needs to do is cast reasonably doubt.
    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
    Warwick_Hunt Posts: 1,179 Forumite
    Options
    George_Michael wrote: »
    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.

    If a not guilty plea is entered they do. ;)
  • maddogb
    maddogb Posts: 473 Forumite
    Options
    "a defence" is not "the only defence" ;)
  • Car_54
    Car_54 Posts: 8,213 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    edited 8 October 2017 at 1:01PM
    Options
    Warwick_Hunt wrote: »
    If a not guilty plea is entered they do. ;)

    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.
  • Warwick_Hunt
    Warwick_Hunt Posts: 1,179 Forumite
    Options
    Car_54 wrote: »
    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.

    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.
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.1K Life & Family
  • 247.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards