drunk and sleeping in car?

[witchy]

There is actually case law on this.

A couple had a dinner party one night and got drunk, as the guests were leaving the wife decided to move their car from down the street to in front of their house. She was pulled over by the Police, breathalised and arrested for being drunk and in charge of a vehicle.

It obviously ended in court and it was ruled she was not drunk and in charge of the vehicle as she had no Mens Rea to drive the vehicle any distance but merely to bring it to her door.

A drunk woman drove a car on a public highway and was caught by police yet it was thrown out of court?? :err:

I don't care if she only moved it an inch, if I were the judge she'd have lost her licence. Where does it end once you start letting people off?

 

[witchy]

i understand police have a job to do and cant stand drunk drivers...but is this not almost 'Minority Report'? charging you for a crime you havnt commited in the the chance you mite commit it? its your car, its your car keys and anything in the car is yours...aslong as you dont drive wots the problem?

i keep my beers in the boot to keep them cold, so if ive had a few then go to the car to get them out i could be charged?

I think the bottom line is you are not allowed to be incharge of a car whilst under the influence of alcohol, but what exactly does 'incharge of a car' mean? :err:

Say I have a drink tonight, my car keys are in my pocket, the car is parked outside my house, the car belongs to me and I'm incharge of it - can the arrest me?!

Ok, I'm being silly.

lol

 

[Teeny]

when going to court, take the controler from the cab office with u who took his call. and if poss the cab driver that had arrived to collect him, and if he does that, don't forget to tell him to go to the cab office and pay for the fare to the cab driver for his wasted time of no fare.

 

[Gargamel]

Yes will be banned mate.

My brother has lung disease, and lives on a Nebulizer every 3 hrs. He went to the pub and had a few with his mates for a b'day.... he had to go out to the car to have his Nebulizer as it runs off the ciggi lighter..portable one. so hes in his car, engine stone cold... having his meds.

Police car pulls in, demands he does a breath test... that he cant do as he does not have the lung volume to do it no more...!

They nick him for d/d in charge of a motor vehicle etc.... goes to court, he gets 12month ban.... even though the car had not been driven, engine was not running, but keys were in ign to run ciggi lighter..

Crock of crap but thats uk law for ya lol

How bizarre.

I don't do as much law as I once did (so I'm probably tad rusty now!) and obviously I don't know the full legal facts of this case so I can't really get too deep into it but...

It sounds as though your brother did have a 'reasonable excuse' for not being able to provide the sample.

If he informed the police officers of his medical condition when the preliminary roadside breath test was requested AND was unable to provide the sample because of this medical condition, then he had a good defence and the Crofton case should have been cited:

DPP v Crofton (1994) RTR 265

It was held that the court should consider the following matters in such circumstances:

* medical evidence of physical or mental inability to provide the specimen;
* the causative link between the physical or mental condition and the failure to provide the specimen.

Once such a defence is raised, the onus is upon the prosecution to negate it.

 

[Rs2k_Rider]

How bizarre.

I don't do as much law as I once did (so I'm probably tad rusty now!) and obviously I don't know the full legal facts of this case so I can't really get too deep into it but...

It sounds as though your brother did have a 'reasonable excuse' for not being able to provide the sample.

If he informed the police officers of his medical condition when the preliminary roadside breath test was requested AND was unable to provide the sample because of this medical condition, then he had a good defence and the Crofton case should have been cited:

DPP v Crofton (1994) RTR 265

It was held that the court should consider the following matters in such circumstances:

* medical evidence of physical or mental inability to provide the specimen;
* the causative link between the physical or mental condition and the failure to provide the specimen.

Once such a defence is raised, the onus is upon the prosecution to negate it.

no idea mate, id expect he does fall under what you put above but know this when at court is another matter. It was explained to the judge the situation etc but they still banned him ! the sickening thing was, that a woman went in before him and only got 6 months ban for no insurance, failing to stop for police and causing an accident ! LOL

yet brother got 12 month ban for taking his meds !

 

[Seedy_r0m]

Surely he would've been asked to provide a blood test sample at the station?

Your brother didn't get a ban for taking his med's m8, it doesn't matter how you dress it up.

 

[Rs2k_Rider]

Surely he would've been asked to provide a blood test sample at the station?

Your brother didn't get a ban for taking his med's m8, it doesn't matter how you dress it up.

Yes he did mate, HE was NOT driving, engine was COLD, tyres were COLD.

Was parked in a PRIVATE pub car park !

But yet was still banned ! for sitting in the car on his nebulizer that he has to have or he will end up in hospital within hrs !

So you explain why he was banned ?

ok, he had been drinking and the keys were in the ign... but in the report the police said there was no evidence of the vehicle being driven !

He did provide a blood sample at the station after being arrested because he could not provide a specimin of breath, and was over limit as ive said... he was out drinking. He had no intention of driving and had a cab booked for closing time.

so comments like "dont matter how you dress it up" are pure bullshit.

 

[v14]

Yes he did mate, HE was NOT driving, engine was COLD, tyres were COLD.

Was parked in a PRIVATE pub car park !

It really doesn't matter to the coppers if the tyres and engine were hot or cold.
All that matters to them is that your bro was over the limit, was in the car and had the keys.
Agree with it or not m8 that's what the law says and that's why he was charged with being "Drunk In Charge Of A Motor Vehicle" .

 

[Seedy_r0m]

I can't remember ever hearing of it being normal procedure for the police to check the temperature of the tyres or engine?

He was banned as he was over the limit, & the keys were in the ignition.
Plain & simple!!!

The failure to provide a breath test has bugger all to do with it. The blood test put paid to that, he was over the limit.

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
He & countless other thousands have been banned for this, & many more thousands will follow.

A small minority of these thousands will decide that they are sober enough to drive home, and in the process will plough down pedestrians or other road users.

Fair enough, you brother hadn't moved the car.
Maybe you can explain why the keys were in the ignition?

 

[neorage]

yeah DD im afraid espically as the car was running...

he could get the taxi rank to prove he had called and was awaiting a taxi..

but again being drunk an in control of the veichle rule will apply

my mates bro was on a pwered respiator for a chest issue.. was out drinking and was sitting in the car running taking it..

car did not move he had to have the engine on for the ciggy lighter to work

got DD and ban..

 

[ms2005]

Was parked in a PRIVATE pub car park !

He needs to get some decent legal representation my friend.

If he was in a truly private car park then then there is no jurisdiction until he enters the public highway.

I've not read the legislation but I've never read a piece of legislation regarding traffic offences that does not include something along the lines of "whilst on a public highway".

Which a private car park is not.

 

[v14]

He needs to get some decent legal representation my friend.

If he was in a truly private car park then then there is no jurisdiction until he enters the public highway.

I've not read the legislation but I've never read a piece of legislation regarding traffic offences that does not include something along the lines of "whilst on a public highway".

Which a private car park is not.

If by legislation you mean the RTOA then forget it.

For example the RTOA says that in order for for a notice of intended prosecution to be deemed served then under section 1(2)
"A notice shall be deemed for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) above to have been served on a person if it was sent by registered post or recorded delivery service addressed to him at his last known address, notwithstanding that the notice was returned as undelivered or was for any other reason not received by him."

The law says under that act that they must inform you by "by registered post or recorded delivery".

The courts disregard this. Most NIP's are sent by second class post but you will still be prosecuted.


So if you get done for any offence under the RTOA i wouldn't hold out much hope of the courts of actually going by what the law says.

 

[ms2005]

If by legislation you mean the RTOA then forget it.

For example the RTOA says that in order for for a notice of intended prosecution to be deemed served then under section 1(2)
"A notice shall be deemed for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) above to have been served on a person if it was sent by registered post or recorded delivery service addressed to him at his last known address, notwithstanding that the notice was returned as undelivered or was for any other reason not received by him."

The law says under that act that they must inform you by "by registered post or recorded delivery".

The courts disregard this. Most NIP's are sent by second class post but you will still be prosecuted.


So if you get done for any offence under the RTOA i wouldn't hold out much hope of the courts of actually going by what the law says.

But that is only if it is disputed there was service, if you respond to the claim, show up etc then it's deemed service was effective.

 

[v14]

But that is only if it is disputed there was service, if you respond to the claim, show up etc then it's deemed service was effective.

if you only disputed service after second notice (which you wouldn't have received until well after the 14 day period) how can they say you got the original if they didn't send it registered or recorded mail?

 

[bilabonic]

What is his exact charge ? I presume it is not failing to provide a specimen for sample as he failed a blood test. If so depending on how far over he was will give a rough estimate of length of his ban, which WILL happen and be minimum of 12 months unless he is a carer/somebody else relies on him for lifts.

You do have mitigating circumstances which may alter the magistrates length of ban....

 

[Rs2k_Rider]

What is his exact charge ? I presume it is not failing to provide a specimen for sample as he failed a blood test. If so depending on how far over he was will give a rough estimate of length of his ban, which WILL happen and be minimum of 12 months unless he is a carer/somebody else relies on him for lifts.

You do have mitigating circumstances which may alter the magistrates length of ban....

Dont know if you have confused my brother with the lad who posted the thread mate lol.

 

[bilabonic]

Dont know if you have confused my brother with the lad who posted the thread mate lol.

Ha Ha That's beer for you mate....lol

He will be charged for failing to provide a specimen for sample which is more serious offence and minimum 18 month ban ( if he was totally rat arsed then he might of dopne the right thing as a very high reading takes you into 24 month ban).

Also he will be classed as high risk and will also have to take a medical which involves a blood test to measure his GGT levels to see if he has a alcohol problem.

He may also be offered a drink drive rehabilitation scheme by the courts dependant on his area which can reduce the ban by upto 25%.

It is upto HIM to prove why he could not provide a sample ie medical grounds.