Good job police

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
7,986
Location
Hear, their, everyware ;)
How does the 'Drunk In Charge' work on a Lorry Driver who is sleeping in his Cab, proper bunk in the back job, not a non-sleeper cabin who's Tacho has forced him into an overnight and there happens to be a Pub across the road... Or, say a proper Camper Van parked up for the night and the occupants are drinking/partying with no intention of driving, why is sleeping in a 'Car' any different?
 
Caporegime
Joined
13 May 2003
Posts
33,939
Location
Warwickshire
How does the 'Drunk In Charge' work on a Lorry Driver who is sleeping in his Cab, proper bunk in the back job, not a non-sleeper cabin who's Tacho has forced him into an overnight and there happens to be a Pub across the road... Or, say a proper Camper Van parked up for the night and the occupants are drinking/partying with no intention of driving, why is sleeping in a 'Car' any different?

Sat in driver's seat with the keys in the ignition being the obvious difference. I suppose lorries have power supplies that do not require the keys to be in the ignition, heating and plug sockets etc.
 
Permabanned
Joined
14 Sep 2005
Posts
10,445
Location
Burnham, Bucks
Sat in driver's seat with the keys in the ignition being the obvious difference. I suppose lorries have power supplies that do not require the keys to be in the ignition, heating and plug sockets etc.

Thats the thing with this case, there are obviously a few factors that have clearly led to his conviction. The main three being asleep in the drivers seat, the car having the key in the ignition with the electrics on and refusing outright to give a breath sample. For all the Police know he could have been 5 times over the limit and was clearly intending to drive off in the morning if he's asleep in the car.
 

Dup

Dup

Soldato
Joined
10 Mar 2006
Posts
11,225
Location
East Lancs
[TW]Fox;20537670 said:
The problem here is that he refused to supply a breath sample. Thats it. Nothing else is really that relevant because we don't know whether he'd have got off had he been charged with drink driving. He wasn't charged with drink driving, he was charged with failing to supply a specimen. Something even somebody who is sober can be charged with.

But surely by failing to supply you are assumed guilty and therefore sentenced to the minimum 12 months driving ban? This is the part I don't understand. If you could just refuse to blow and get 6 months everyone would do that instead!
 
Soldato
Joined
19 Aug 2003
Posts
2,569
Location
North
If i ever hit someone they should have to supply a breathe test too. Who is to say they didn't just stagger out from between two cars?
 
Man of Honour
Joined
17 Nov 2003
Posts
36,743
Location
Southampton, UK
But surely by failing to supply you are assumed guilty and therefore sentenced to the minimum 12 months driving ban? This is the part I don't understand. If you could just refuse to blow and get 6 months everyone would do that instead!

You're not assumed guilty, you are guilty. Failure to provide is an absolute offence. If you don't give a sample in a required scenario then that's it. The sentencing guidelines for failure to provide and drink driving are the same to prevent people from thinking they will get off lightly if they don't give a sample.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
5,538
No, because we've established that you're not in charge of the vehicle.

Have we? It appears to be vague and up to the police officer to decide.

as others have pointed out, all the driver has to do is stop the car and change seats, then claim their mate was driving. Where would you have that line?

I'd like to be able to give police officers the power to punish those swinging the lead and assume they will not abuse those powers to punish people who are obviously law abiding citizens.

But what happens is this:
Hmm, not surprising.

A common tactic by some forces is to target drivers who are parked for the night - sleeping in their vehicles - despite the fact we are on our legal rest period which means by law we cannot move and more to the point, should not be disturbed, they love to get the drivers up & breathalise them.

Is that in keeping with the spirit of the law?
 

Mat

Mat

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
13,928
If i ever hit someone they should have to supply a breathe test too. Who is to say they didn't just stagger out from between two cars?

Who is to say that they didn't just trip on a broken paving slab and accidentally stumble into the road? Unfortunately, you as the driver have a duty of care, I suppose you could call it, whereby you should drive with respect to the conditions and surroundings.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Jan 2006
Posts
4,551
Location
Edinburgh
It even makes it clear in the link (maybe been added since originally posted?)

"Members of the public do not really understand the charge of being 'in charge of a motor vehicle' and do not understand why they are being arrested."

Mr Hallam said Marshall's "mistake" was not to breathe into the intoxilyzer machine properly.

"If he had provided a specimen he would have been over the limit, clearly," Mr Hallam said.

"He made a mistake of not co-operating with the procedure."

Mr Hallam said that had Marshall been charged with being in charge of motor vehicle while drunk, he would have advised him to plead not guilty and would have defended him in court.

Even his own defence lawyer points out that if he had been charged with being drunk in charge of a vehicle, then he would have advised him to plead not guilty.

But as it stands, he made the mistake of not cooperating with the police procedure and so was instead charged with a completely different offence (failing to provide a second sample). One to which he had no defence and so was advised to plead guilty.

Any debate about whether having the keys on you counts as being in charge of a vehicle is completely irrelevant to whether you would actually end up being found guilty of a crime and punished in the same way as the OP.
 
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Joined
17 Nov 2003
Posts
36,743
Location
Southampton, UK
It even makes it clear in the link (maybe been added since originally posted?)



Even his own defence lawyer points out that if he had been charged with being drunk in charge of a vehicle, then he would have advised him to plead not guilty.

But as it stands, he made the mistake of not cooperating with the police procedure and so was instead charged with a completely different offence (failing to provide a second sample). One to which he had no defence and so was advised to plead guilty.

Any debate about whether having the keys on you counts as being in charge of a vehicle is completely irrelevant to whether you would actually end up being found guilty of a crime and punished in the same way as the OP.

Indeed. Being drunk in charge requires the prosecution to prove he was in control of the vehicle. This is a much higher burden of proof than that of failing to provide as that is an absolute offence.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
So, to sum up:

Nobody gives a damn about the "spirit of the law" (except Telescopi) because all we're interested in is being good law abiding citizens, regardless of how ridiculous our laws have become.

So let's all cheer the amount of the power the Police currently have, to make you a criminal when your intent is anything but.

Hurrah!
 
Man of Honour
Joined
2 Jan 2009
Posts
60,169
So, to sum up:

Nobody gives a damn about the "spirit of the law" (except Telescopi) because all we're interested in is being good law abiding citizens, regardless of how ridiculous our laws have become.

So let's all cheer the amount of the power the Police currently have, to make you a criminal when your intent is anything but.

Hurrah!

For the millionth time, it has nothing to do with that.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
11 Mar 2004
Posts
76,634
Your missing the point he failed to give a specimen.
He was in a car, in the drivers seat, that is grounds to investigate and gather evidence.
If he had a gave a sample and then still be charged &convicted, then you would have a point. But that's not what happened.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
17 Nov 2003
Posts
36,743
Location
Southampton, UK
So, to sum up:

Nobody gives a damn about the "spirit of the law" (except Telescopi) because all we're interested in is being good law abiding citizens, regardless of how ridiculous our laws have become.

So let's all cheer the amount of the power the Police currently have, to make you a criminal when your intent is anything but.

Hurrah!

Police act on the letter of the law not the spirit. That's for judges and magistrates to interpret. This is to ensure consistency.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Jan 2006
Posts
4,551
Location
Edinburgh
So, to sum up:

Nobody gives a damn about the "spirit of the law" (except Telescopi) because all we're interested in is being good law abiding citizens, regardless of how ridiculous our laws have become.

So let's all cheer the amount of the power the Police currently have, to make you a criminal when your intent is anything but.

Hurrah!

Where are you drawing these conclusions from?

He is a criminal because he chose to refuse to cooperate with the police, by not providing a second breath sample. If he hadn't made that mistake, then it is unlikely (or at least less likely) that he would have been found guilty of anything.

He was not charged with being drunk, or drink driving, or being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle, or anything similar.

The police cannot knowingly let someone, who they suspect is steaming drunk, sit or sleep behind the wheel of a car. That would be ridiculous.

They simply took him in for questioning and followed the required procedures (in case any evidence was required at a later date) and he failed to cooperate.

What would have happened if it turned out that there was evidence to show that he drove into the car park (straight from the pub)? If they don't have any breath test results, then they couldn't prosecute.

And yes you can get charged with drink driving without being caught driving at the time. I know someone who drove home from the pub, got home ok, but had the police turn up and breathalyse him and then charge him based on evidence that he was seen leaving the pub in his car.



edit:

Police act on the letter of the law not the spirit. That's for judges and magistrates to interpret. This is to ensure consistency.

And this.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom