According to the law it is an offence to be “in charge with excess alcohol/while unfit through drink”.

There is no legal definition for the term "in charge" so each case will depend on its exact circumstances and facts. Generally, a Defendant is "in charge" if he was the owner/in possession of the vehicle or had recently driven it.

In charge can include attempting to gain entry to the vehicle and failing, having keys to the vehicle, having intention to take control of the vehicle or even "being near the vehicle".

How mad is that? I DO (believe me) appreciate the need to prosecute people driving or trying to start or drive a car whilst drunk but “being NEAR the vehicle”??? Surely that means (eg)…
1. I am at home having a drink with friends
2. At some point, I go to my car, parked on my driveway, to check I locked the car earlier that day etc etc
3. Or I leave the house with housekeys (incl car key on the same keyring) to WALK THE DOG and naturally walk past my car on the way out
4. and so I am at that point committing an offence for which I can (i) lose my licence (ii) pay a huge fine (iii) go to jail?

Please tell me I’ve got that wrong? Or how do I even have a legal drink at home without being a prisoner in my own home?  ...

Be true to yourself. That way happiness lies...

It's right, the possibility is there to be prosecuted to a lesser charge than that of drink driving.
If you wander pass your car after a few drinks while walking the dog or whatever, why would the police breathalyse you! in fact why would they even bother you.
If you were legless and falling all over the place while walking the dog then there's good reason to stop you, one for the poor dog and two for being a danger to yourself and anyone/anything else around you. If you have your car keys in your pocket its up to you to prove you wasn't going to drive the car.
I think common sense would prevail here.

The main factor of this offence is the onus on the prosecution to prove the 'intent to drive'. Technically, if you are in possession of the car keys, you are indeed in charge of that vehicle, but if there is never any realistic chance of proving your intent to drive, the offence is not made out and CPS would not run the case. Gone - TD4 XS Auto, Sumatra Black, Mud flaps and side strips, clear indicators, private plate, privacy glass

Perhaps I'm just expressing paranoia. It just strikes me as odd that a law can be framed in such a way to allow for the possibility of prosecution (or at least the threat of it) when absolutely no crime will have been intended.
How far should the law abiding citizen go to stay on the right side of the law? De-couple car from house keys? (Then risk being locked out of your own house)... or never leave the house after a drink...?
What about the same scenario but you go into the boot for (eg) urgent medication - are you then deemed to be 'in charge' and thus liable to prosecution?
The law allows for prosecution even if the car has no engine or wheels, not able to be started or moved! How on earth can that prove to be a hazard to be investigated?
Ah well. It just strikes me that the honest joe COULD fall foul without meaning to, and be subject to worry, inconvenience, expense & hassle if some authority figure decided to make a case... ...

Be true to yourself. That way happiness lies...

I know where you're coming from. If you read the law without any awareness of it's practical application, it can appear very concerning.

In the cirminal court, the offence has to be proven 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Police officers rarely arrest for the offence of 'drunk in charge', unless the facts of the incident suggest a clear intent to drive. I would suggest you would have to be physically sat in the drivers seat, with the engine running, in gear, lights on (if applicable) etc. etc. Anything less and, even if you were arrested, I very much doubt you wouild be convicted of the offence of drunk in charge.

As an example, I'm aware of a case where the defendent was sat behind the wheel of a car, having started the engine. He was heavily intoxicated and failed the screening breath test. He was arrested and failed the evidential procedure. In court, he pleaded 'not guilty', stating he came out of his house to sit in his car. He started the engine to warm himself up, as his central heating had packed up. He stated he had no intentioon to drive at all until at least 12 hours later, at which point the alcohol in his system would have been below the prescribed limit. Absolute b s, but the prosecution could not prove otherwise. He was aquitted.....

Moral of the story being, there's a very low chance of getting convicted of this offence Gone - TD4 XS Auto, Sumatra Black, Mud flaps and side strips, clear indicators, private plate, privacy glass

Philsh... thanks for the reasoned response. However I don't plan to test this law! Will give the keys to the dog on the way out...  ...

Be true to yourself. That way happiness lies...

piattj wrote:

Philsh... thanks for the reasoned response. However I don't plan to test this law! Will give the keys to the dog on the way out...

You're welcome  Gone - TD4 XS Auto, Sumatra Black, Mud flaps and side strips, clear indicators, private plate, privacy glass

So, what if you have a motorhome, you park up for the night, have some drinks and then sleep for the night in your bed in the motorhome? Does that involve being "drunk in charge".

HEY, IVE JUST NOTICED - IT'S MY 1000th POST!!

Last edited by Tigger on 19th Apr 2012 4:57 pm. Edited 1 time in total

I know of an incident similar to what you’re concerned about.

I drink in a village that is basically one street, so the pub has no carpark and no smokers area, So you park your car in the street outside the pub and stand outside the pub to smoke.

A mate of mine, who’s family is known to the police ( although he doesn’t have a criminal record ) came out drinking, Parked his car like everyone else and went in for a drink, after a couple of pints he went outside with a couple others to smoke.

The police were doing their local rounds, calling at all pubs in the area to see who was about ( as they usually do ) and came to my local, spotted the lad stood outside, spotted his van parked up and approached him.

They asked him where the keys for the van was and he produced them from his pocket. They then asked him to provide a sample of breath as he was “In charge of a motor vehicle”

Luckily for my mate he was just under the limit so nothing came of it and the police went on their way.

Point is though that he had no intention to drive and had already arranged a taxi home before coming out, I think his car was even parked on the opposite side of the road. Obviously this lad was singled out because of his family but had he failed the test I believe he’d of lost his licence and probably his job as he works as a plumber.

There was a case in our local paper a few years ago where a guy realised he was over the limit so kipped across the back seat, he was woken up in the small hours bagged and charged, got one year ban.

Bit harsh isn't it. People who go on camping holidays in motorhomes must be shi ing themselfs everytime they have a couple of cans before turning in on a summer night

ad210358 wrote:

There was a case in our local paper a few years ago where a guy realised he was over the limit so kipped across the back seat, he was woken up in the small hours bagged and charged, got one year ban.

Hmmmm... "very rare". I personally find it worrying that your life could be f d if things go badly... charged, unsympathetic court hearing, banned, lose job etc just cos you had keys with you within 12 feet of a motor, even though you had no intention of driving it. Surely the law should be addressing the committing of a crime, not the possibility of it... what next... thought crime - " I was proceeding along High Street and I perceived the defendant was THINKING about driving his car..." ... surely at LEAST having the bloody keys in the ignition should be required...  ...

Be true to yourself. That way happiness lies...

Just to clarify for those who are still worried about this. The intent to drive is key to the offence. The example of the man asleep in the rear of his car, after having a skinful. If he was nicked at 0200 hours, provided a specimen of breath of 80 mgs (limit being 35), but stated he had no intention of driving until 0800 hours. It would be down to back calculations to determine if, at the point he intended to drive, he would still be over the prescribed limit. If (theoretically) he would still be over the limit, the offence is complete and he would be liable to conviction and disqualification.

Rightly so, in that case. However, if he had a few beers and was asleep in his car, but stated he had no intention of driving until 1200 hours the following day, the chances are he would not be over the limit at that time. My advice would be - DON'T sleep in the back seat of the car after a good night out, as it always draws unecessary attention

Anyway, I'm off to the pub with my car keys in my pocket  Gone - TD4 XS Auto, Sumatra Black, Mud flaps and side strips, clear indicators, private plate, privacy glass

Uhhh Just be careful out there

Quote:

The law is no different for motorhomes or HGV drivers in cabs. They may well be able to provide a reasonable defence if they were parked up and settled for the night in a recognised parking bay on a motorway services or whatever, or in the case of an HGV driver if he had his schedule of the following days work which might show his expected departure time. Officer discretion would have to come into play regarding arrest in these circumstances.