Losleones wrote:longdog wrote:
If it were really true that you could be done for drink driving when your car is 350 miles away then what's to stop you being done for drink driving when you're asleep in your own house with your car keys hanging on the hook in the hall?
If you want to go to ridiculous extremes then what's to stop a cop breathalysing me on the bus coming home from the pub tonight (YAY!!! Its pay-day
) and charging me with attempting to drive my mate's car? After all... I
would be drunk and I
do have a licence and I
do have a spare key to my mate's house and I
do know where she keeps her car keys and her house
is on the bus route home. The mere hint of a possibility that I might, under some bizarre set of circumstances, drive after a few sherberts does not a criminal offence make.
You wouldn't be done for drink driving whilst asleep in your own bed as your car is on the driveway & has reached its final destination & you can sleep off your hangover & go on your merry way when sober enough to do so. The point I'm making is whilst you're over the limit & in possession of your keys which hasn't made it onto your driveway whether you're inside the vehicle or not you run the risk of losing your licence as the Police assume you are intending driving that conveyance home at some stage. As ridiculous as it may well be it appears to be the case, unless the retired PO of 40yrs service got his facts wrong.
Lets look at what the law actually says:
Code: Select all
Driving, or being in charge, when under influence of drink or drugs.
(1)A person who, when driving or attempting to drive a [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] on a road or other public place, is unfit to drive through drink or drugs is guilty of an offence.
(2)Without prejudice to subsection (1) above, a person who, when in charge of a [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] which is on a road or other public place, is unfit to drive through drink or drugs is guilty of an offence.
(3)For the purposes of subsection (2) above, a person shall be deemed not to have been in charge of a [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] if he proves that at the material time the circumstances were such that there was no likelihood of his driving it so long as he remained unfit to drive through drink or drugs.
(4)The court may, in determining whether there was such a likelihood as is mentioned in subsection (3) above, disregard any injury to him and any damage to the vehicle.
(5)For the purposes of this section, a person shall be taken to be unfit to drive if his ability to drive properly is for the time being impaired.
(6)[F2A constable may arrest a person without warrant if he has reasonable cause to suspect that that person is or has been committing an offence under this section.]
(7)[F2For the purpose of arresting a person under the power conferred by subsection (6) above, a constable may enter (if need be by force) any place where that person is or where the constable, with reasonable cause, suspects him to be.]
The requirement is driving or attempting to drive, or when in charge. Now obviously driving while drunk is out, as is attempting to drive (which would likely apply to starting the ignition and being ready to set off), but the devil no doubt lies in how the courts interpret "in charge".
Is simply having the keys of a vehicle being "in charge" of it. Subsection 3 helps somewhat by furthering with if you can prove that at the material time there was no likelihood of driving, then you can be in charge and drunk. So a person having a drink in a motorhome and then retiring to the bed within it would be very unlikely to be convicted if they can prove that they were in bed and not in the driving seat, or if they had in some way immobilised the vehicle, say by fitting their own wheel clamp prior to the nights libations..
Equally the man 350 miles away may well be drunk with their keys, but they can't be in charge of the vehicle, given the distance. The same with the night bus hypothesis, you aren't in charge of the vehicle because it is not your vehicle and in order to become in charge of it would likely have to break several laws.
So what would be the best way of showing that "there was no likelihood of his driving it so long as he remained unfit to drive through drink or drugs." I would suggest from a very practical standpoint not being located in the vicinity of the controls. If drunk and it is necessary for you to sleep in the car, take up a passenger or rear seat, while you might be in charge, it should be plainly obvious that you have no intention of driving. Of course this distinction may be lost on a police officer no matter how long their service, who might take the view that it's best to arrest and then let the courts deal with the issue, or may be ignorant of the finer points of law, or may have ill intent toward a citizen. I would suspect, in this most unlikely of circumstances, it would likely be dropped by the CPS, as a person drunk, trying to take their car keys home without using the car is acting in precisely the manner Parliament intended when it drafted and passed the legislation.
