Drunk Driving - Urban Myth?

[Rod Serling]

My mate said he drove home really drunk and when he parked outside his house, he fell asleep, still in the driver's seat, keys in the ignition, etc.

I said he was technically (and actually, but not caught) drink driving could be charged with being drunk in charge of a vehicle.

My other mate said, no that's an urban myth.

Who is right in this instance?

[exdc]

Hi

Have a read of Sec 4 and 5

http://www.legislatio...kpga/1988/52/contents

[jno]

friend of mine went to jail for that years ago, though I don't know what changes have been made to the law since then. The defence provided in exdc's link would be pretty hard to put forward.

[JimmyCooper]

You would be done for DD no question

[sasskins]

You are.

[New Judge]

This is no urban myth, and furthermore the keys do not have to be in the ignition for the offence to be proved.

Section 5 (1) (b) in exdc’s link provides details of the offence (that of being “in charge” of a motor vehicle whilst over the prescribed limit). The person alleged to be in charge would be asked to take a roadside breath test. If he refused he would be committing an offence. If it was positive he would be arrested and asked to provide two further breath specimens at the police station. (Again, if he refused he would be committing an offence).

The penalties for being “in charge” are less severe than for actually driving whilst over the prescribed limit. The maximum penalties (for being over the limit or refusing to supply a specimen) whilst in charge are 3 months imprisonment and/or a fine of up to £2,500. This compares with six months and/or £5,000 for actually driving. Also, the "in charge" offence carries no mandatory disqualification, but a minimum of 10 penalty points if no disqualification is ordered. Actually driving whilst over the limit carries a mandatory 12 month disqualification (3 years for a second or subsequent offence within 10 years).

As has been mentioned, the statutory defence (“...the circumstances were such that there was no likelihood of his driving the vehicle whilst the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine remained likely to exceed the prescribed limit.”) is difficult to sustain, especially in the circumstances you describe where the keys were still in the ignition.

[Lacy]

I agree with everything you say, New Judge.....with the exception of the Statutory defence being difficult to sustain. This is an unusual case where the driver has fallen asleep outside his house. I have often had drivers found asleep on, say, a pub car park with keys in the ignition and even with the engine running. If the 'driver' says he had no intention of driving and was merely trying to stay warm and intended to sleep the drink off then a prosecution is likely to fail. In all probability, he wouldn't be charged. In this case, however, the driver is outside his house. Why was he in the car in the first place? He couldn't Liam to be keeping warm otherwise he would have gone into his house.......It might be difficult to prove an intention to drive as he is already outside his house....so where is he likely to be driving to? You know, and I know, that he drove the car there but, in the absence of any evidence to show he drove there, or an admission from him that he had done so, he cannot be charged with driving whilst over the prescribed limit.

He would, as in all cases of being drunk in charge, be interviewed once he was sober and whether or not he ended up with a charge would very much depend on what he said in interview.

[New Judge]

Yes, Lacy, but the onus reverts to him to prove (on the balance of probabilities) that there was no likliehood of him driving. Simply saying that he had no intention of doing so in interview would, I suggest, be insufficient.

Note that there does not have to be an intention to drive, but merely a likliehood of him driving. It could easily be argued that, as he was intoxicated (which he must have been or he would not have been arrested in the first place) his judgement may have been impaired and he may well have taken the decision to drive.

These cases are always difficult to judge on a "blanket" basis and each would turn on all the circumstances.

[shoota]

D. i. C would be the power of arrest and the charge. Whether he would actually be proceeded against would then be decided by the CPS on the balance of the evidence against him and his statement.