Drunk in charge, how can they prove it?

[Routemaster]

This is a very grey area. Technically you are committing an offence if you (on your own) are inside or entering a stationary mechanically propelled vehicle, in a public place whilst over the alcohol limit.

however there are a lot of questions on different scenarios. In all cases the person is breathlysed and over the legal limit.

1) You went to a party and were drunk. A friend drove you home in your car and stopped at a takeaway leaving you in the passenger seat. Police approach.Could you be prosecuted?

2) You're at home, have had several alcoholic drinks and walk down to your car in your bare feet, open the passenger door to get a CD, police appear. Could you be arrested for drunk in charge? They could argue that you intended to drive.

3) You had a lot to drink one night and decide to sleep on the back seat of your car. No keys in ignition, engine off and cold so no proof it had be driven recently. You're in a sleeping bag or under blankets asleep when police arrive. Can you be prosecuted?

4) You park your motorhome in a lay-by at night. Clamp the front wheel. Put curtains across the windscreen. Fold down drivers seat. Sit in the living area in your PJs drinking a bottle of wine, perhaps while in bed. Quite obvious you are not going to drive! Police arrive. Could you be prosecuted?

(They may argue that after several hours you may drive off whilst over the limit, but then that's like saying a person drunk in their house with their car on the street outside their home may decide to drive somewhere, so where do you draw the line?)

5) You go on a coach trip and have had several drinks. The coach stops in town everyone gets off, you ask the driver if you can stay on board. You are the only person left on that coach. By coincidence you have a PCV licence, but work for a different coach firm. The police arrive and ask you for a breath test. Could they hold you responsible for being in charge of that coach and prosecute you? They could even claim you're the second driver!

6) its Sunday afternoon, you've had a few beers or wine with your meal. You go outside to do some work on your car on the street. Bonnet open engine running, some engine components removed tool box by car etc. police arrive could they prosecute you for being drink in charge?

What are your views on drunk in charge? Discuss.

 

[Routemaster]

It's a bit of a sticky wicket but suppose you parked your car and a sleeping in the back seat over the limit. Police arrive and ask you to move it?

This has been mentioned before but the fact is if your car is in the wrong place then generally its a parking offence. When given the choice of a criminal record and ban for drink driving OR a parking fine then I think everyone would choose the parking fine or getting clamped Or else say their car has broken down and someone is coming in the morning.

 

[price1367]

There is no legal definition of "in charge of a motor vehicle" instead the law says: 'it is a matter of fact and degree for the magistrates to decide.' I would certainly advocate that if a person has been drinking then they go nowhere near their vehicle.
I think some of the scenarios are rather far fetched, especially in relation to someone 'inheriting' being in charge after the driver has got out. To be considered as in charge in those cases the person would have had to do something positive towards taking control of the car / bus rather than simply being in the vehicle as the driver would retain the title of being 'in charge.'
Once the case is made out that a person is in charge, a defence can be put forward that there was no likelihood of driving whilst still over the limit. It is one of those rare cases where a person has to prove their innocence rather than, in most cases, where an accused person does not have have to say anything and the prosecution must prove their guilt. Therefore there is a presumption that a person IS going to drive whilst still over the limit, and it is for them to satisfy the court that they were NOT going to drive.
You could debate for evermore about how unfair this is....... but that is the law as it stands and we all have to abide by it. Generally the movement is for drink driving laws to be tightened up, so the chances of asking the system to be amended to go easier on ' in charge ' offences are practically zero. The only way that 'in charge' is treated in a softer way is that a disqualification is discretional rather than obligatory - but if no ban is imposed then the offence carries 10 points.

 

[Routemaster]

There is no legal definition of "in charge of a motor vehicle" instead the law says: 'it is a matter of fact and degree for the magistrates to decide.' I would certainly advocate that if a person has been drinking then they go nowhere near their vehicle.
I think some of the scenarios are rather far fetched, especially in relation to someone 'inheriting' being in charge after the driver has got out. To be considered as in charge in those cases the person would have had to do something positive towards taking control of the car / bus rather than simply being in the vehicle as the driver would retain the title of being 'in charge.'
Once the case is made out that a person is in charge, a defence can be put forward that there was no likelihood of driving whilst still over the limit. It is one of those rare cases where a person has to prove their innocence rather than, in most cases, where an accused person does not have have to say anything and the prosecution must prove their guilt. Therefore there is a presumption that a person IS going to drive whilst still over the limit, and it is for them to satisfy the court that they were NOT going to drive.
You could debate for evermore about how unfair this is....... but that is the law as it stands and we all have to abide by it. Generally the movement is for drink driving laws to be tightened up, so the chances of asking the system to be amended to go easier on ' in charge ' offences are practically zero. The only way that 'in charge' is treated in a softer way is that a disqualification is discretional rather than obligatory - but if no ban is imposed then the offence carries 10 points.

Even without a driving ban its still unfair that they will get a criminal record and be barred for life from a lot of jobs such as teaching, working in a bank, working with kids etc, or loose such jobs if they are in that profession, just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I think the criminal record is the worst stigma. So best to stay well clear or any mechanical vehicle if you have been drinking, and never be in one alone.

 

[price1367]

I would agree about staying away from vehicles, but you are NOT barred for life from those jobs.
on a DBS check, it will show up for 11 years if that is your only conviction. After that it does not show and does not have to be declared. Even in the first 11 years, it does not Barr you, nor necessarily cost you your job. It depends on the circumstances of the offence and the nature of the employment. I have met many people on my courses with employment such as child minders, teachers and nurses, who have DBS checks and they have not been barred from working in their field.