Solicitor recommendation....drunk and in charge of a vechicle.

[Chris666]

107.—(1) Save as provided in paragraph (2), no person shall leave, or cause or permit to be left, on a road a motor vehicle which is not attended by a person licensed to drive it unless the engine is stopped and any parking brake with which the vehicle is required to be equipped is effectively set.

 

[stevieturbo]

That's why he's getting charged with Drunk In Charge and not Drink Driving.

Same punishment though, so the charge is irrelevant.

The problem is, the charge is against what someone might do, rather than any harm etc they have done, even despite there being no intent.

 

[stevieturbo]

Whether you intend to drive or not is irrelevant by that stage, drunk people are prone to erratic and misjudged behaviour so they can't predict their own behaviour and neither can anyone else.

With law, intent is everything.

And equally, sober people are unpredictable and often have erratic behaviour or make crazy decisions, especially behind the wheel. The most common being the blind ****s who cause crashes on a daily basis.

Unfit to drive should apply regardless of any intoxication. Lets face it, if you were to charge all people without intent to drive dangerously who get behind the wheel....millions would be arrested.

 

[andy9eleven]

If you were in China right now such behaviours would severely degrade your social score.

I fear we are all as a society heading towards the same fate.

 

[stevieturbo]

Few mates of mine stopped off at a Chinese one night, one of them was lying in a coma on the back seat, so they left the car running as it was just parked at the door. Police arrived, looked at car, mates seen them on walkie talkies but thought nothing off it. Next thing a van arrived, and they lifted the unconcious fella out, and charged him with DIC. No amount of explaining from fellas that were in the Chinese would change their mind, was a very unfair one I thought.

Yet if you left a child in a car momentarily under the same circumstances ( or indeed any other person unfit or unqualified to drive )....bet the police wouldnt charge both with an underage, uninsured, unfit driver etc.

It's just the law picking and choosing, instead of actually doing it based on genuine road safety.

 

[Ghost]

Few mates of mine stopped off at a Chinese one night, one of them was lying in a coma on the back seat, so they left the car running as it was just parked at the door. Police arrived, looked at car, mates seen them on walkie talkies but thought nothing off it. Next thing a van arrived, and they lifted the unconcious fella out, and charged him with DIC. No amount of explaining from fellas that were in the Chinese would change their mind, was a very unfair one I thought.

I'm sure there was CCTV which could have been checked...of it was in the last 15 years.

 

[Rocko]

Same punishment though, so the charge is irrelevant.

The problem is, the charge is against what someone might do, rather than any harm etc they have done, even despite there being no intent.

The charge is drunk in charge. He was drunk in charge. He wasn't juggling pints of Stella, he was drunk in charge of a motor vehicle. He did it, not might do it, he was doing it at the time he was arrested.

 

[Woodcutter]

The charge is drunk in charge. He was drunk in charge. He wasn't juggling pints of Stella, he was drunk in charge of a motor vehicle. He did it, not might do it, he was doing it at the time he was arrested.

You joined the cops recently Rocko? lol

You seem very passionate about this!

 

[Rocko]

Passionate about people not reading.

"He wasn't even driving!" - Not the charge.
"Arrested for what he might do!" - Not the charge.
"No intent!" - Not the charge.

He did it. Sh*tty thing to happen, but he did it.

 

[stevieturbo]

The charge is drunk in charge. He was drunk in charge. He wasn't juggling pints of Stella, he was drunk in charge of a motor vehicle. He did it, not might do it, he was doing it at the time he was arrested.

And this is the problem...the law is an arse and equally "unfit" for purpose

 

[Gaz]

With law, intent is everything.
.

Unfortunately intent can not always be proven. The law has to often resort to making a deduction beyond reasonable doubt.

If cops catch you pissed as a newt in the drivers seat of a car with a set of keys either in the ignition or your hand, your intent may be honourable but the bottom line is you’re not going to come out of this smelling of roses. So my advice to those unfortunate souls who find themselves in that scenario is to exercise some brain cells and don’t do it in the first place.

I’m not sure why you’re making references to sober dangerous drivers and bad drivers and so on. Plenty of people get points for speeding and dangerous driving too, it’s not like cops ignore them just so they can concentrate on the odd guy caught DIC.

 

[andy9eleven]

I think it’s the also the general presumption of “guilty until/unless proven innocent” that seems to be permeating all sorts of things these days, that people don’t like.

 

[stevieturbo]

Unfortunately intent can not always be proven. The law has to often resort to making a deduction beyond reasonable doubt.

If cops catch you pissed as a newt in the drivers seat of a car with a set of keys either in the ignition or your hand, your intent may be honourable but the bottom line is you’re not going to come out of this smelling of roses. So my advice to those unfortunate souls who find themselves in that scenario is to exercise some brain cells and don’t do it in the first place.

I’m not sure why you’re making references to sober dangerous drivers and bad drivers and so on. Plenty of people get points for speeding and dangerous driving too, it’s not like cops ignore them just so they can concentrate on the odd guy caught DIC.

Because unfit/dangerous should apply regardless of alcohol or drugs. They are both killers, with the vast majority of killers on the roads being sober...and indeed many of those dangerous road users being pedestrians, although they usually get themselves killed rather than killing others.

And as you well know, or should, the whole points/speeding thing is another farce in terms of road safety.

There's no doubt this guy was an idiot for what he done, but there should be a scaled approach when it comes to these things in terms of punishments. Someone trying to do the right thing in bad circumstances, and ultimately causing no harm, or even inconvenience to anyone whatsoever is in no way comparable to someone actually driving whilst off their rocker. Yet the punishment will still start at the same place. A years ban etc.
Same with the law targeting the morning after far more so, than targeting those actually driving legless from bars etc, when it's blatantly obvious which is the biggest danger.

 

[stevieturbo]

I think it’s the also the general presumption of “guilty until/unless proven innocent” that seems to be permeating all sorts of things these days, that people don’t like.

I think it's more than a presumption.

If you cannot buy a defence in court....you're screwed because it costs the police/CPS nothing to have lots of solicitors etc to fight against you and make allegations, but if you're a working person, it costs you a pretty penny to try and prove your innocence.
That has to be wrong on every level of justice. Justice and a fair trail should not have to be bought or come down to money, yet the entire legal/court system is built around that very thing, unless you're a DLA freeloader type.

 

[chris_b]

To be fair I’d be delighted to see a check point outside every country town on the wee hours of a Saturday & Sunday morning.
The amount of ‘drink drivers’ in rural areas is frightening tbh

 

[davey-dimples]

That's why he's getting charged with Drunk In Charge and not Drink Driving.

Considering the penalties for each its a stone's throw away.

If some injury or harm came of his actions then hold him accountable. But really what is wrong with sleeping off alcohol in a motor vehicle?

 

[davey-dimples]

.

 

[collyirwin11]

Passionate about people not reading.

"He wasn't even driving!" - Not the charge.
"Arrested for what he might do!" - Not the charge.
"No intent!" - Not the charge.

He did it. Sh*tty thing to happen, but he did it.

I feel this is one of those threads which should have ended once the first bit of appropriate advice/person to contact was given.

OP wanted solicitor recommendation, Police get picked apart for doing their job.

As someone has already mentioned, all the honourable intentions mean nothing when they wake up 3-4hrs later, deem themselves fit to drive cause its now daylight and they maybe dont feel so drunk, and crash on the way home as they aren’t as fit as they think.

As said, it is unfortunate, and he can plead his case to the judge where he may be able to explain the situation.

 

[Rocko]

Considering the penalties for each its a stone's throw away.

Not really. Drink Driving is a substantial ban, DIC isn't.

 

[G N K]

To be fair I’d be delighted to see a check point outside every country town on the wee hours of a Saturday & Sunday morning.
The amount of ‘drink drivers’ in rural areas is frightening tbh

Got stopped and breathalysed 2 nights ago, perfect set up they had on the shore road, there was litterally no where to go.

 

[Gaz]

Because unfit/dangerous should apply regardless of alcohol or drugs. They are both killers, with the vast majority of killers on the roads being sober...and indeed many of those dangerous road users being pedestrians, although they usually get themselves killed rather than killing others.

And as you well know, or should, the whole points/speeding thing is another farce in terms of road safety.

There's no doubt this guy was an idiot for what he done, but there should be a scaled approach when it comes to these things in terms of punishments. Someone trying to do the right thing in bad circumstances, and ultimately causing no harm, or even inconvenience to anyone whatsoever is in no way comparable to someone actually driving whilst off their rocker. Yet the punishment will still start at the same place. A years ban etc.
Same with the law targeting the morning after far more so, than targeting those actually driving legless from bars etc, when it's blatantly obvious which is the biggest danger.

I agree generally about scaled punishments, but again, you’re taking the word of a potential drunk driver at face value when they say they were just having a snooze. In any event, the DIC charge is a lesser one than DUI so it’s already scaled to some degree

How do we know they’re telling the truth? Isn’t that a bit naive, just like encountering a man with a bag of tools in someone’s back yard at 3am and accepting his word that he’s just there to do a bit of DIY?

Surely the main aim - above legalities and intricacies of the law and all else - is to prevent potential accidents and deaths, which means removing those people who aren’t fit to drive from the drivers seat of vehicles?

Intent is largely irrelevant here. A drunk driver is a drunk driver, and it really doesn’t matter one iota if that’s some pleb falling out of a nightclub into his car at 3am or the dear sweet old man down the road who’s just driving to get his paper on a Sunday morning (after a skinful the night before). The alcohol content in the bloodstream may be less the next morning but if it’s still over the limit then the person should not be on the road, but again there seems to be this old school way of thinking amongst some people that try to rationalise that behaviour. The only difference the next morning is that many people have had a nights rest, breakfast and feel a bit fresher and well enough to drive, which is a false perception.

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve been there and done it (driving next morning) when younger so I’m not trying to take a holier than thou attitude. But I have had 2 incidents among friends of family members being killed by drunk drivers and it prompted me to look at my own approach to it and try to take a bit more responsibility.

 

[Dusty]

Here's a question. I was out with friends on Saturday night, prepared to have a drink. Drove to location, knowing I was leaving car overnight and getting home with my brother who doesn't drink. Obviously I would have had my car key with me, attached to my house keys because I drove in and was going home, just not in my own car.

Am I then liable to be arrested for having a couple of drinks in possession of a car key even though I had arranged a lift home? Sounds a bit nonsensical to me.

 

[Rocko]

As long as you're not in the car, they mostly don't care. You're not going to get lifted miles away from your car for being drunk in charge of a house.

 

[purplea4T]

Here's a question. I was out with friends on Saturday night, prepared to have a drink. Drove to location, knowing I was leaving car overnight and getting home with my brother who doesn't drink. Obviously I would have had my car key with me, attached to my house keys because I drove in and was going home, just not in my own car.

Am I then liable to be arrested for having a couple of drinks in possession of a car key even though I had arranged a lift home? Sounds a bit nonsensical to me.

No, it’s reasonable in the circumstances to have keys with you. If you return to the vehicle and get in, that’s a different matter. Getting a bag out is reasonable, sleeping in it whether the engine is running or not but in possession of the keys isn’t.
You as a driver must prove you had no intention of driving the vehicle, it’s not for the police to prove. The offence is clearly worded and the defences are all pretty straightforward too.

 

[davey-dimples]

Here's a question. I was out with friends on Saturday night, prepared to have a drink. Drove to location, knowing I was leaving car overnight and getting home with my brother who doesn't drink. Obviously I would have had my car key with me, attached to my house keys because I drove in and was going home, just not in my own car.

Am I then liable to be arrested for having a couple of drinks in possession of a car key even though I had arranged a lift home? Sounds a bit nonsensical to me.

I've heard of it happening to people when the car was miles away.