1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Good job police

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by BunnyKillBot, 10 Nov 2011.

  1. doofer

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 7,989

    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?
     
  2. Participant

    Caporegime

    Joined: 13 May 2003

    Posts: 31,940

    Location: Warwickshire

    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.
     
  3. Wicksta

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 14 Sep 2005

    Posts: 10,445

    Location: Burnham, Bucks

    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.
     
  4. Dup

    Capodecina

    Joined: 10 Mar 2006

    Posts: 10,323

    Location: East Lancs

    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!
     
  5. Andy

    Mobster

    Joined: 19 Aug 2003

    Posts: 2,568

    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?
     
  6. Burnsy2023

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 17 Nov 2003

    Posts: 36,636

    Location: Southampton, UK

    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.
     
  7. Dave M

    Soldato

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 5,536

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

    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:
    Is that in keeping with the spirit of the law?
     
  8. Mat

    Capodecina

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 13,928

    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.
     
  9. Django x2

    Capodecina

    Joined: 28 Sep 2008

    Posts: 13,536

    Location: Britain

    Isn't it a case of, keys found on you, tough ****?
     
  10. div0

    Mobster

    Joined: 12 Jan 2006

    Posts: 3,606

    Location: Edinburgh

    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.
     
    Last edited: 11 Nov 2011
  11. Wicksta

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 14 Sep 2005

    Posts: 10,445

    Location: Burnham, Bucks

    But wait div0, you mean we can't bash the Police for this after all? :( :(
     
  12. MooMoo444

    Caporegime

    Joined: 4 Jul 2008

    Posts: 25,577

    Location: (''\(';.;')/'')

    If he failed to provide a sample then he was in the wrong, pretty much all thats key here.
     
  13. div0

    Mobster

    Joined: 12 Jan 2006

    Posts: 3,606

    Location: Edinburgh

    Why let the facts get in the way of a good police bashing opportunity? :p

    /sharpens pitchfork
     
  14. Burnsy2023

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 17 Nov 2003

    Posts: 36,636

    Location: Southampton, UK

    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.
     
  15. FoxEye

    Caporegime

    Joined: 17 Feb 2006

    Posts: 26,788

    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!
     
  16. Robbo

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: 2 Jan 2009

    Posts: 55,044

    For the millionth time, it has nothing to do with that.
     
  17. Glaucus

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 11 Mar 2004

    Posts: 76,645

    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.
     
  18. Burnsy2023

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 17 Nov 2003

    Posts: 36,636

    Location: Southampton, UK

    Police act on the letter of the law not the spirit. That's for judges and magistrates to interpret. This is to ensure consistency.
     
  19. div0

    Mobster

    Joined: 12 Jan 2006

    Posts: 3,606

    Location: Edinburgh

    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:

    And this.
     
    Last edited: 11 Nov 2011
  20. steve1873

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 13 Oct 2009

    Posts: 680

    HAVE!!! Sorry, but that really annoys me!