Drunk in charge whilst asleep. (3 Viewers)

[daventess]

Just came across this video. In summary, if you sleep in your motorhome whilst drunk you are technically in charge of that vehicle whilst drunk and could be prosecuted (the motorhome bit is towards the end) :



I assume this is only when on public roads, but even so.

Thoughts?

 

[Jim]

Yes, I know this.

Has anyone been prosecuted or does anybody know anyone who has ever been prosecuted?

I just answered your question and explained why it was unlikely to happen.

 

[JRT]

I just answered your question and explained why it was unlikely to happen.

Indeed, thanks so much.

 

[Jim]

Indeed, thanks so much.

You're welcome

 

[EuroTrotters]

This seems to have been running for many many years.

Has anyone been prosecuted or does anybody know anyone who has ever been prosecuted?

(Not somebody who knows somebody who heard somebody down the pub had been).

There was an Ex Cop on another forum, a motorhomer, who was telling a story, at a meet/rally we attended that......

Whilst on duty, he came across a motorhome in a lay-by. He pulled in and questioned the driver and his wife who had consumed some tins of lager. The driver insisted it they were going to stay the night, in the motorhome in the off carriageway lay-by.

The cop decided to breathalyse the driver and he was arrested and charged.

At this point, I butted in and said, would you have done the same if that was a group of travellers gathered in the lay-by. Bonfire on the go with feral kids running around?.

I wasn't very popular with him or his audience .

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Bobbejaan]

I would only drink if I was either on a campsite or felt 100% safe, we always put the keys in the safe and the seats are always rotated, I definitely wouldn’t drink if I thought there was a chance we could be moved on, if it were to happen as we both drive which one of us would be done ?

Depending on the circumstances, possibly both. Either could drive. Either could show intent to drive. Both would have to prove no intent to drive.

A Bad Answer ! ..........

That response/charge (to the effect that ANY & ALL in the vehicle could be prosecuted) is fantasy "Function Creep" and would effectively be ultra vires and would be bound to fail in any Court Case, even IF the Police Officer could CONvince the CPS/PF to actually attempt any such legally incompetent prosecution.

IF that "both prosecutable just by occupying the vehicle" scenario had any Legal Standing, you could just as easily apply that twisted-logic and principle to ANYBODY ELSE in that vehicle for any other "Falsely Perceived or Alleged Offences" .... Such as (for example) likewise prosecuting any other kids/guests/visitors/etc for No-Licence/No-Insurance/Control-of-the-vehicle/etc/etc.

It is self evident that TWO (or more) people cannot possibly simultaneously drive & be in Legal control of the same vehicle at the same time. ..... Only ONE could be prosecuted for the specific offence, and even then generally only IF they made an unwise admission OR there was other viable evidence against that one person.

I have a great deal of respect for the police, but I truly hate some of the twisted & unreasonable logic & understanding of the actual Law & Statutes they are wrongly & badly mis-taught in the course of their training and practical-experience probation.

 

[meanders]

That makes both logical and legal sense thank you.

Without asking to much Bobbejaan, you obviously have some legal training in order to conclude thus? I further wondered if some of the scenario's discussed would amount to entrapment if seeking an admission from all the adult individuals therein? We already know, because the registration document tells us that the registered keeper may not be the actual owner, so who is 'in charge'? The person driving when you parked up?
If the keys are out of sight, even if someone is sleeping in the front of the vehicle, does that mean the person on the seat at the time is the one in charge and with intent? Hypothetical nonsense you would expect in a police state.

Much earlier, someone (Jim) said that the police don't have to prove anything, and that the individual has to prove that they were not intending to drive. I rarely disagree with our great leader, but that cannot be right as its at odds with our legal system, natural justice and the statute. The police MAY be able to get CPS to agree charging based on such whimsical idealism, (although I really doubt it) but no court should convict without the police/CPS proving 'intention to drive' by the presentation of evidence 'beyond reasonable doubt' unless a guilty plea was entered. It's always down to the prosecution to prove the case to gain a conviction, (and in which, a confession can only be admitted under certain circumstances as evidence, and to which the defence of 'duress' could easily be applied). Until a guilty plea or finding, the individual is innocent until proven guilty. Please note my emphasis. Yes, if the police are determined to find something they can pin on you, then something might stick, but I can't see it getting past any appeal court.

That said, anyone caught 'driving under the influence' should have the book thrown at them. But if parked up, and asleep, you are not 'driving'. Being awakened and 'told to move', then even that would be challengeable. The correct response to the request to move would be to hand them the keys and tell them to move it 'as I do not know if I am fit to drive', but it not 'reasonable' in law to expect people to think that when just woken, and there again would lay your defence.

 

[Jim]

said that the police don't have to prove anything, and that the individual has to prove that they were not intending to drive. I rarely disagree with our great leader, but that cannot be right as its at odds with our legal system,

If over the prescribed limit inside your van, you have committed the offence. However, you have a legal defence, and are not guilty, if you can show you had no intention to drive. In a motorhome, that's easy to do, which is why arrests are unheard of.

From the CPS

In relation to being in charge of a motor vehicle, a person is not guilty if they prove that the circumstances were such that there was no likelihood of them driving the vehicle whilst the proportion of alcohol in their breath, blood or urine exceeded the prescribed limit.

By making your intention to sleep, not drive, obvious, you can bolster your defence from even the most malicious police officer.

• If in a Pub, make sure the landlord knows your intention to sleep in the car park.
• Ensure the motorhome is parked in the right place and not causing any obstructions before you have a drink.
• Put your silver-screens in the windscreen (internally will do)
• If you use a steering lock, pop it on.
• If you have a slide-out, you could put it out
• You could put jacks or steadies down
• Never have the keys in or anywhere near the ignition
• If you have a safe, put the keys in it
• Never sit in the driving seat unless it is spun around. Spin it around before you have a drink.

 

[Silver-Fox]

Yes, no getting away from it, if drinking in the van you are guilty of the offence. But you have a defence if you can prove you have no intention to drive.

Drinking Alcohol in Your Motorhome

Drinking alcohol in your motorhome in a public place is illegal, however, you have a defence it is obvious you do not intend to drive.

www.motorhomefun.co.uk

As it’s criminal law would it have to be proved you intended to drive.

Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

Just wondering

 

[suavecarve]

A Bad Answer ! ..........

That response/charge (to the effect that ANY & ALL in the vehicle could be prosecuted) is fantasy "Function Creep" and would effectively be ultra vires and would be bound to fail in any Court Case, even IF the Police Officer could CONvince the CPS/PF to actually attempt any such legally incompetent prosecution.

IF that "both prosecutable just by occupying the vehicle" scenario had any Legal Standing, you could just as easily apply that twisted-logic and principle to ANYBODY ELSE in that vehicle for any other "Falsely Perceived or Alleged Offences" .... Such as (for example) likewise prosecuting any other kids/guests/visitors/etc for No-Licence/No-Insurance/Control-of-the-vehicle/etc/etc.

It is self evident that TWO (or more) people cannot possibly simultaneously drive & be in Legal control of the same vehicle at the same time. ..... Only ONE could be prosecuted for the specific offence, and even then generally only IF they made an unwise admission OR there was other viable evidence against that one person.

I have a great deal of respect for the police, but I truly hate some of the twisted & unreasonable logic & understanding of the actual Law & Statutes they are wrongly & badly mis-taught in the course of their training and practical-experience probation.

So if there were 2 people parked up on a campsite in a motorhome and as an Officer you suspected they might drive, which one of the 2 would you request a sample of breath from ? You need to determine if someone or sometwo had the intent of driving. If they are both over the limit and you suspect both were going to drive and they are, for example, both on the insurance as a married couple, but lets say number 1 was the registered owner but the front seat was set up for the significantly smaller number 2, which one would be arrested if you could only take one as only one person can be in charge.

I am unsure of any offence for which you can be charged for having the intent to drive without insurance, without licence etc.

I once nicked 3 people for driving the same vehicle at the same time along the same road whilst over the prescribed limit. It was a transit with no view of the driver from the back. As it stopped they all got into the passenger seat and nobody was in the drivers seat. Which one person should I have arrested if I follow the logic of your bolded statement ?Registered owner then has an option of naming the driver of the vehicle at the time ?
If I can only arrest one, I can only breathalise one as I am not aware of any power to breathalise a passenger, they have to be suspected of being in control or driving whilst over the limit (or moving road traffic offence)

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Jim]

As it’s criminal law would it have to be proved you intended to drive.

Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

Just wondering

Read the CPS quote above. If you can prove your intent was not to drive, you are not guilty.

 

[Tombola]

What about if I was in my caravan on a site doing the same..still hitched or not hitched..

 

[Jim]

What about if I was in my caravan on a site doing the same..still hitched or not hitched..

What if, what if, what if. Is why lawyers are rich

 

[Steve and Denise]

What if, what if, what if. Is why lawyers are rich

I don’t know any rich lawyers, they are all now MPs

 

[David and Sally]

A Bad Answer ! ..........

That response/charge (to the effect that ANY & ALL in the vehicle could be prosecuted) is fantasy "Function Creep" and would effectively be ultra vires and would be bound to fail in any Court Case, even IF the Police Officer could CONvince the CPS/PF to actually attempt any such legally incompetent prosecution.

IF that "both prosecutable just by occupying the vehicle" scenario had any Legal Standing, you could just as easily apply that twisted-logic and principle to ANYBODY ELSE in that vehicle for any other "Falsely Perceived or Alleged Offences" .... Such as (for example) likewise prosecuting any other kids/guests/visitors/etc for No-Licence/No-Insurance/Control-of-the-vehicle/etc/etc.

It is self evident that TWO (or more) people cannot possibly simultaneously drive & be in Legal control of the same vehicle at the same time. ..... Only ONE could be prosecuted for the specific offence, and even then generally only IF they made an unwise admission OR there was other viable evidence against that one person.

I have a great deal of respect for the police, but I truly hate some of the twisted & unreasonable logic & understanding of the actual Law & Statutes they are wrongly & badly mis-taught in the course of their training and practical-experience probation.

I did say possibly.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Odd job]

I advise locking the ignition key away in one of the external lockers, it's difficult for even a "stropy" copper to prove intent to drive if he/she can't find the key

 

[daventess]

As we're just shooting the breeze here - my wife doesn't drive the van. She's not insured to and doesn't want to. In addition to turning the seat around, blinds, etc., if she held on to the keys, do you think that would count as them as being as out of reach as if they were in a drawer, say? Or do you think that might put her in danger despite not having insurance, etc.?

I'd always want one of us to carry the keys in case we leave the van together.

I know NOUAL, but still, it's a fun thread

 

[DT]

I remember the days when I approached drivers who three away the keys saying they could not drive. Often they were so drunk they did it right in front of you.

 

[dunnah01]

Just offer the copper a can of Stella and a doughnut and you'll be fine

 

[David and Sally]

As we're just shooting the breeze here - my wife doesn't drive the van. She's not insured to and doesn't want to. In addition to turning the seat around, blinds, etc., if she held on to the keys, do you think that would count as them as being as out of reach as if they were in a drawer, say? Or do you think that might put her in danger despite not having insurance, etc.?

I'd always want one of us to carry the keys in case we leave the van together.

I know NOUAL, but still, it's a fun thread

Same here. Sally does not drive the van. In which case I could throw her to the wolves and have her done for no insurance too. But then I could get done for permitting.

Just joking.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Fdhadi]

Does this kind of thing happen in France et al?

Only if you have the right sticker.

 

[suavecarve]

As we're just shooting the breeze here - my wife doesn't drive the van. She's not insured to and doesn't want to. In addition to turning the seat around, blinds, etc., if she held on to the keys, do you think that would count as them as being as out of reach as if they were in a drawer, say? Or do you think that might put her in danger despite not having insurance, etc.?

I'd always want one of us to carry the keys in case we leave the van together.

I know NOUAL, but still, it's a fun thread

There is quite a difference between a Police Officer arresting someone on suspicion of being in control of a vehicle whilst over the prescribed limit and being charged with same offence to being convicted of same offence.

The first one is suspicion. If you are in your vehicle, you are in charge, if you are walking towards your vehicle with keys in your hand, you are in charge and therefore arrestable because the officer only needs suspicion in order to arrest.

Once arrested the officer has to try and prove the offence and you should be cautioned where they can make notes of the conversation and invite you to agree with the notes they made.

Then you are given a right to a solicitor who you may or may not seek advice from and perhaps even take it. Then there is an interview as they have to prove your intent to drive (even though you were in control)
In olden days you would then have to convince the Custody Sgt you had sufficient evidence to charge the person.
The conversation might go something like this.
"Sarge, he was on this campsite and we had been called because they were singing cum by yar loudly to the annoyance of a Morelo owner and I formed the opinion he was drunk, so I breathlysed him and he was over. I thought he might drive off at 0200 hrs even though his drivers seat was pointing in the wrong direction, the keys were in his safe and his blinds were pulled, in interview he told me he has booked for the week of camping but he is in control of his vehicle. Can we charge him"

Sgt "Son, how many crimes do you have on your workload? Do you know the most obscure job in the police where they send you when you are a complete idiot? Do I enjoy embarrassing you in front of all these fellow officers, prisoners and solicitors who are listening to the drivel coming out of your mouth ?"

At this point the previously presumed fine officer might like to withdraw the request for a charge, but lets say somehow it gets past the Sgt and the officer has to contact the CPS in order to charge this person, which would be a higher threshhold. I would strongly suspect that the answer in an e mail would be "Insufficient evidence not likely to bring a succesful prosecution at Court"

But lets say the CPS decided to go for it, in old terms, give it a run. (really really unrealistic) and you go to Court where 3 magistrates listen to your camping story and that there were 40 other vans there that were also singing cum by yah.

The only question that is on the lips of the magistrates is "I wonder if he was shagging the inspectors or the superintendants wife"

This may be the reason nobody can give a real account of being done for it if precautions are taken, even though you (your wife) are technically guilty.

Hopefully the Officer is then on a very steep learning curve or sent to the long term missing persons unit at the farthest point from their home address within the same County. A sure sign that the Officer needs to consider their position.

 

[Stoosal]

That makes both logical and legal sense thank you.

Without asking to much Bobbejaan, you obviously have some legal training in order to conclude thus? I further wondered if some of the scenario's discussed would amount to entrapment if seeking an admission from all the adult individuals therein? We already know, because the registration document tells us that the registered keeper may not be the actual owner, so who is 'in charge'? The person driving when you parked up?
If the keys are out of sight, even if someone is sleeping in the front of the vehicle, does that mean the person on the seat at the time is the one in charge and with intent? Hypothetical nonsense you would expect in a police state.

Much earlier, someone (Jim) said that the police don't have to prove anything, and that the individual has to prove that they were not intending to drive. I rarely disagree with our great leader, but that cannot be right as its at odds with our legal system, natural justice and the statute. The police MAY be able to get CPS to agree charging based on such whimsical idealism, (although I really doubt it) but no court should convict without the police/CPS proving 'intention to drive' by the presentation of evidence 'beyond reasonable doubt' unless a guilty plea was entered. It's always down to the prosecution to prove the case to gain a conviction, (and in which, a confession can only be admitted under certain circumstances as evidence, and to which the defence of 'duress' could easily be applied). Until a guilty plea or finding, the individual is innocent until proven guilty. Please note my emphasis. Yes, if the police are determined to find something they can pin on you, then something might stick, but I can't see it getting past any appeal court.

That said, anyone caught 'driving under the influence' should have the book thrown at them. But if parked up, and asleep, you are not 'driving'. Being awakened and 'told to move', then even that would be challengeable. The correct response to the request to move would be to hand them the keys and tell them to move it 'as I do not know if I am fit to drive', but it not 'reasonable' in law to expect people to think that when just woken, and there again would lay your defence.

Much the same with a person found in public with a bladed article……..guilty unless they can prove beyond reasonable doubt that they had it for a lawful reason. For person in possession to prove lawful possession, not cps to disprove.

 

[nicholsong]

There is quite a difference between a Police Officer arresting someone on suspicion of being in control of a vehicle whilst over the prescribed limit and being charged with same offence to being convicted of same offence.

The first one is suspicion. If you are in your vehicle, you are in charge, if you are walking towards your vehicle with keys in your hand, you are in charge and therefore arrestable because the officer only needs suspicion in order to arrest.

Once arrested the officer has to try and prove the offence and you should be cautioned where they can make notes of the conversation and invite you to agree with the notes they made.

Then you are given a right to a solicitor who you may or may not seek advice from and perhaps even take it. Then there is an interview as they have to prove your intent to drive (even though you were in control)
In olden days you would then have to convince the Custody Sgt you had sufficient evidence to charge the person.
The conversation might go something like this.
"Sarge, he was on this campsite and we had been called because they were singing cum by yar loudly to the annoyance of a Morelo owner and I formed the opinion he was drunk, so I breathlysed him and he was over. I thought he might drive off at 0200 hrs even though his drivers seat was pointing in the wrong direction, the keys were in his safe and his blinds were pulled, in interview he told me he has booked for the week of camping but he is in control of his vehicle. Can we charge him"

Sgt "Son, how many crimes do you have on your workload? Do you know the most obscure job in the police where they send you when you are a complete idiot? Do I enjoy embarrassing you in front of all these fellow officers, prisoners and solicitors who are listening to the drivel coming out of your mouth ?"

At this point the previously presumed fine officer might like to withdraw the request for a charge, but lets say somehow it gets past the Sgt and the officer has to contact the CPS in order to charge this person, which would be a higher threshhold. I would strongly suspect that the answer in an e mail would be "Insufficient evidence not likely to bring a succesful prosecution at Court"

But lets say the CPS decided to go for it, in old terms, give it a run. (really really unrealistic) and you go to Court where 3 magistrates listen to your camping story and that there were 40 other vans there that were also singing cum by yah.

The only question that is on the lips of the magistrates is "I wonder if he was shagging the inspectors or the superintendants wife"

This may be the reason nobody can give a real account of being done for it if precautions are taken, even though you (your wife) are technically guilty.

Hopefully the Officer is then on a very steep learning curve or sent to the long term missing persons unit at the farthest point from their home address within the same County. A sure sign that the Officer needs to consider their position.

I think that post puts this topic to bed (drunk or otherwise) !!!

 

[daventess]

I think that post puts this topic to bed (drunk or otherwise) !!!

Was a good read, though. It had geniunely never crossed my mind that you could get done for that, and I now know to take sensible precautions.

Glad I posted!

Now, how about using the toilet when drunk ...

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[David and Sally]

Now, how about using the toilet when drunk ...

Take better aim

 

[Nigel P]

The complications with the above probably arise from oddly worded legislation. S4 and S5 Road Traffic Act 1988 deal with drunk in charge/excess alcohol but are worded slightly differently. S5 defence is perfectly clear that the 'defence' is only available in court, not at the road side, whilst S4 implies the same but is not worded so specifically. In other words if arrested for drunk in charge or in charge whilst over the prescribed limit the defence is against the charge not the arrest. So either way it would be a court appearance unless CPS follow the 'not in the public interest' route. To answer one point raised earlier you do not need to be in the vehicle to be committing offences.

 

[Chrisvh]

There is quite a difference between a Police Officer arresting someone on suspicion of being in control of a vehicle whilst over the prescribed limit and being charged with same offence to being convicted of same offence.

The first one is suspicion. If you are in your vehicle, you are in charge, if you are walking towards your vehicle with keys in your hand, you are in charge and therefore arrestable because the officer only needs suspicion in order to arrest.

Once arrested the officer has to try and prove the offence and you should be cautioned where they can make notes of the conversation and invite you to agree with the notes they made.

Then you are given a right to a solicitor who you may or may not seek advice from and perhaps even take it. Then there is an interview as they have to prove your intent to drive (even though you were in control)
In olden days you would then have to convince the Custody Sgt you had sufficient evidence to charge the person.
The conversation might go something like this.
"Sarge, he was on this campsite and we had been called because they were singing cum by yar loudly to the annoyance of a Morelo owner and I formed the opinion he was drunk, so I breathlysed him and he was over. I thought he might drive off at 0200 hrs even though his drivers seat was pointing in the wrong direction, the keys were in his safe and his blinds were pulled, in interview he told me he has booked for the week of camping but he is in control of his vehicle. Can we charge him"

Sgt "Son, how many crimes do you have on your workload? Do you know the most obscure job in the police where they send you when you are a complete idiot? Do I enjoy embarrassing you in front of all these fellow officers, prisoners and solicitors who are listening to the drivel coming out of your mouth ?"

At this point the previously presumed fine officer might like to withdraw the request for a charge, but lets say somehow it gets past the Sgt and the officer has to contact the CPS in order to charge this person, which would be a higher threshhold. I would strongly suspect that the answer in an e mail would be "Insufficient evidence not likely to bring a succesful prosecution at Court"

But lets say the CPS decided to go for it, in old terms, give it a run. (really really unrealistic) and you go to Court where 3 magistrates listen to your camping story and that there were 40 other vans there that were also singing cum by yah.

The only question that is on the lips of the magistrates is "I wonder if he was shagging the inspectors or the superintendants wife"

This may be the reason nobody can give a real account of being done for it if precautions are taken, even though you (your wife) are technically guilty.

Hopefully the Officer is then on a very steep learning curve or sent to the long term missing persons unit at the farthest point from their home address within the same County. A sure sign that the Officer needs to consider their position.

That sums it up. In 30 years I dealt with plenty of DIC offences. Unwise, in my experience, to incur the wrath of the Station/Custody Sgt with anything as dodgy as some of the motorhome related offences above.
I can recall one MH/Camper van arrest. Vehicle parked on a clearway, no lights, at 0300 hrs. Polite knock on window was answered with a torrent of expletives when the door opened. Driver was the worse for wear and dealt with accordingly.

 

[suavecarve]

Same here. Sally does not drive the van. In which case I could throw her to the wolves and have her done for no insurance too. But then I could get done for permitting.

Just joking.

Register the van in her name then they cant do you for using causing permitting and she can take all the heat and still be back to cook breakfast.

 

[David and Sally]

Register the van in her name then they cant do you for using causing permitting and she can take all the heat and still be back to cook breakfast.

V5 on its way to DVLA

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[suavecarve]

That sums it up. In 30 years I dealt with plenty of DIC offences. Unwise, in my experience, to incur the wrath of the Station/Custody Sgt with anything as dodgy as some of the motorhome related offences above.
I can recall one MH/Camper van arrest. Vehicle parked on a clearway, no lights, at 0300 hrs. Polite knock on window was answered with a torrent of expletives when the door opened. Driver was the worse for wear and dealt with accordingly.

Wo betide upsetting the Custody or Desk Sarge. Career suicide. Always know how many sugars they took so I could make them a coffee (and therefore get one myself)