Good job police

Soldato
Joined
28 Oct 2002
Posts
5,014
Not always, it depends entirely on the case in question, and in this situation, the police did nothing wrong. People just do not understand the law. :)
No, I think it's pretty clear most people understand the law, they just think it's stupid.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
2 Jan 2009
Posts
60,169
It still doesn't change the fact that either the Police have no common sense or they are simply not allowed to exercise common sense in today's target-driven world.

Would it have happened a few decades ago? Before the Police were just drones that had to blindly follow procedure and never make judgement calls? Before they left people to drown in rivers becuase "health & safety training said we shouldn't try to rescue them"... etc.

They may have suspected he had been driving the vehicle though, if not minutes before then an hour or so before.

So then when he refused to give a sample, they threw the book at him, and rightly so.

No, I think it's pretty clear most people understand the law, they just think it's stupid.

Well, the gentleman in question obviously didn't.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
Some cars need the keys in or the alarm goes off, my old focus done this....

imo your only "In charge" of the car when the hand break is off.

Probably not quite that simple, but in this case:

parked in a car park
engine presumably *cold*
asleep

Should be enough to decide that you weren't driving or intending to drive.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
They may have suspected he had been driving the vehicle though, if not minutes before then an hour or so before.

I may suspect you're an axe murderer. Without evidence, that suspicion shouldn't be worth ****.

And presumably there would be CCTV cameras around to find out when he parked, etc.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
11 Mar 2004
Posts
76,634
Probably not quite that simple, but in this case:

parked in a car park
engine presumably *cold*
asleep

Should be enough to decide that you weren't driving or intending to drive.

He wasn't charged with driving under the influence. He was charged with failure to give a sample. There's no defence for this, it was his own fault. If he had given the specimen, he could have at least gone to court and argued his side and hopefully the judge would have give him the minimum punishment.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
2 Jan 2009
Posts
60,169
I may suspect you're an axe murderer. Without evidence, that suspicion shouldn't be worth ****.

And presumably there would be CCTV cameras around to find out when he parked, etc.

He wasn't charged with driving under the influence. He was charged with failure to give a sample. There's no defence for this, it was his own fault. If he had given the specimen, he could have at least gone to court and argued his side and hopefully the judge would have give him the minimum punishment.

Exactly, this is the point really. I think it's just another case of people seeing what they want to see.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
He wasn't charged with driving under the influence. He was charged with failure to give a sample. There's no defence for this, it was his own fault. If he had given the specimen, he could have at least gone to court and argued his side and hopefully the judge would have give him the minimum punishment.

The intention of the law (minus the legal bs), is to prevent drunk drivers causing injury and damage. Yes/no? Or is the intention of the law to prevent drunk people entering their car? Or perhaps to prevent drunk people walking on the same street as their car?

At some point you have to look at the reason for the law, and stop obsessing about the application/wording of the law. That's for lawyers (who I despise anyhow :p)
 
Man of Honour
Joined
11 Mar 2004
Posts
76,634
Police had reasonable grounds to investigate.
He failed to give a sample, which gave police and cps no leeway.

It's as simple as that.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Apr 2007
Posts
11,784
The tenuous point for me is that the person in question. Wouldn't need to provide a sample if he was not in charge of a vehicle.

The way a person is deemed to be 'in charge' I think needs to be addressed, for example, my parents when I was young, would frequency drive to a nice country pub, that was thier "local", get trollied and cab it home, every weekend with out fail.

By the current rationale, the police could get the stats right up simply by going to country pubs and nicking anyone with a set of keys if thier car was outside... its unacceptable behaviour.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
11 Mar 2004
Posts
76,634
The tenuous point for me is that the person in question. Wouldn't need to provide a sample if he was not in charge of a vehicle.

The way a person is deemed to be 'in charge' I think needs to be addressed, for example, my parents when I was young, would frequency drive to a nice country pub, that was thier "local", get trollied and cab it home, every weekend with out fail.

By the current rationale, the police could get the stats right up simply by going to country pubs and nicking anyone with a set of keys if thier car was outside... its unacceptable behaviour.

That's not what happened though. He was in driver seat, apparently with keys in ignition. That is more than enough grounds and is in charge.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
12,298
Location
Vvardenfell
Probably not quite that simple, but in this case:

parked in a car park
engine presumably *cold*
asleep

Should be enough to decide that you weren't driving or intending to drive.


It does not follow: he could wake up three minutes later and drive off - which is precisely why the law is the way it is.


M
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
LOL, it gets better. From http://www.drinkdrivinglaw.co.uk/offences/in_charge_of_a_vehicle_with_excess_alcohol.htm

What is the legal definition of being in charge?

There is no legal definition for the term "in charge" so each case will depend on its exact circumstances and facts. Generally, a Defendant is "in charge" if he was the owner/in possession of the vehicle or had recently driven it. He is not in charge if it is being driven by another person or is "a great distance" from the vehicle.

Matters are more complicated where a person is sitting in the vehicle or "otherwise involved with it". In charge can include attempting to gain entry to the vehicle and failing, having keys to the vehicle, having intention to take control of the vehicle or even "being near the vehicle".

You don't even need to be in the vehicle to be done for this. Just having the keys and being nearby is enough. You don't even have to be physically capable of getting in the vehicle :D

Fun times!
 
Man of Honour
Joined
11 Mar 2004
Posts
76,634
Ah, convicted for a potential future crime, then. Makes *perfect* sense ;)

It's not a future crime, the laws defined.
You might not like the law and IMO its to open to interpretation.
But that doesn't applie to this case and it's certainly not being convicted for a future crime.

Even if your just sat in the car with no keys, you can still take the handbrake off.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
You could argue the same if someone was stood pointing a loaded gun at someone else.

"It's okay, just leave them to it."

In that situation, without context, you don't even know who the aggressor is/was. He could be pointing the gun at a burglar in self defense for all we know.

Hence why common sense needs to be applied. If you just arrest everyone who points a gun and convict them on the grounds that they may have used it to commit murder, then that would clearly be absurd.

Anyway, I'll put myself in the "the law is an ass" camp, and be done with it :p Otherwise we could be here all day :p
 
Back
Top Bottom