Thanks all for great input.

So I summarise...

..."drunk in charge" is a different offence to "over the limit, driving" and a prosecution of the former is unlikely to succeed without strong evidence of intent to drive on the public road. The latter is (as you say) measureable (so much alcohol in blood etc) and so a more straightforward prosecution & conviction. And these are the people we want off the roads, not the poor dog walker cheerfully (after 2-3 wines) taking Bonzo for his evening constitutional...  ...

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

dunroof wrote:

I've read your thread, I could go into stated cases and how the law is interpreted, but there isn't much point in extolling the energy in truth. Put bluntly, you won't get done for drunk driving having a drink in your own home with your car outside or walking the dog past your parked car. That's just paranoia manifesting itself on a forum! Oh, almost forgot, you don't need car keys in your pocket to get done for in charge or driving. Leaning in an open window and releasing the handbrake will do nicely!

Hulloo there old sunroof... just to revisit your reply...

"... there isn't much point in extolling the energy in truth" actually I did deal with that one but just for clarity...
ex·tol    to praise highly; laud; eulogize: (eg "to extol the beauty of ...") so you're saying there's not much point in praising the energy... uh?

"Put bluntly, you won't get done for drunk driving having a drink in your own home with your car outside or walking the dog past your parked car". ... Well, others on this forum have offered a different perspective that suggests that ... put bluntly, your posting is verging on, well... incorrect.

"That's just paranoia manifesting itself on a forum!" More metaphysics from sunroof I believe! Nope. It's not paranoia, just raising interesting questions, to engage the brain and other forum members. Not too helpful saying that there's no point in a posting claiming 'stated cases' then not bothering to share them. Thanks not.  ...

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

Last edited by dunroof on 1st Dec 2012 7:38 am. Edited 1 time in total

Interesting reading, below, in italics, is an extract from a transcript, a link to more is given below, I think it adds a little interest to the debate.

Unfortunately the first step in this process involves the police, their instinct is to stop you driving at all costs and with such an unclear law and there need to be seen to do right. I would imagine much of what takes place at the time of the arrest would also depend on your attitude, if you have an antagonistic approach then you're on a hiding to nothing, jovially declare you are getting a CD from the glovebox and state that the car is going nowhere and they should more than likely let you carry on. If you lock the car and walk away, no problem.

Common Sense is all that is needed..............if only

In regard to that section two broad propositions are clear. First, the offence of being 'in charge' is the lowest in the scale of three charges relating to driving and drink. The two higher in the scale are driving and attempting to drive. Therefore a defendant can be 'in charge' although neither driving nor attempting to drive. Clearly, however, the mischief aimed at is to prevent driving when unfit through drink. The offence of being 'in charge' must therefore be intended to convict those who are not driving and have not yet done more than a preparatory act towards driving, but who in all the circumstances have already formed or may yet form the intention to drive the vehicle, and may try to drive it whilst still unfit.

Second, Parliament has thought it necessary, by a deeming provision, to provide that proof of no likelihood of driving whilst still unfit negatives being 'in charge'. It must follow that but for that defence a person could be 'in charge' notwithstanding there is no likelihood of his driving. Thus to establish that a person is prima facie 'in charge' of a vehicle does not require proof of likelihood to drive it while still unfit. The burden is on him, once there is a prima facie case, to show there was no such likelihood. If he discharges that burden, he is deemed not to have been 'in charge'.

Accordingly, to raise a prima facie case, the prosecution have to prove some connection, which can be less than attempting to drive, between a person in the proscribed condition and a motor vehicle on a road or public place. The nature of that connection is the elusive element.

The test laid down in Haines v Roberts [1953] 1 All ER 344, [1953] 1 WLR 309 has been criticised as being too strict. In Woodage v Jones (No 2) (1975) 60 Cr App R 260 the defendant had driven erratically, stopped his car and, when told the police were coming, walked away without locking the car. He was arrested at a phone box over half a mile away. He was unfit through drink. The issue in the case was the lawfulness of his arrest and the statutory defence under s 5(3) of the 1972 Act was not raised. James LJ cited the passage already quoted from the judgment of Lord Goddard CJ in Haines v Roberts and continued (at 263):



'Those words express the view expressed in many cases that once a person takes a vehicle on to the public road he remains in charge of that vehicle until he has taken it off the road again unless some intervening act occurs whereby he puts it in the charge of someone else. [Counsel for the appellant] frankly concedes that in the present day when circumstances are such that persons frequently have no option but to leave their vehicles on the public road parked at night, for example because they have no means of taking it off the road to park it in a garage, some relaxation of the former rigid principle ought to be adopted. But there are limits to the relaxation and in every case it must be a matter of fact and degree as to whether a person is in charge of the vehicle.'



It would seem that the court agreed with counsel's concession that some relaxation of the rigid rule should be allowed. In my judgment that must be so. Otherwise the owner of a vehicle who parks it on the road near his home, drinks to excess and is later fast asleep in bed for the night would still be 'in charge' of the vehicle and prima facie guilty of an offence. Even more absurdly, he would be 'in charge' if he parked it at an airport or railway station, took the keys and was drunk whilst away on holiday. No doubt since the statutory defence became available, he would be able in either of those instances to invoke it. But in my judgment the phrase is not so wide as to import even prima facie liability on those facts.



http://members.fortunecity.com/legalstuff/19891QB821.htm

I would breathalyse anyone who has just retuned their cars nose or added a chrome arse piece, drink must be involved surely? If not drink take a good look into their pupils.

 At work
At home

"I can't always believe facts I read on the web" - Charles Dickens

winner by default of the tractor vs caravan race

dunroof wrote:

There is masses of stated cases, if your interested, look them up. I am sure they will come up under a Google search. Alternatively, get your hands on a Sweet and Maxwells bible. The thing is you make a law and it gets tested in court. If either side isn't happy, you appeal it, simples. Others may well have a different opinion, albeit a layman and/or unqualified, and they are entitled to be wrong.

This has been fascinating & opened my eyes (& those of others perhaps) to the machinations of the law relating to driving. Thanks to all for your useful and informative input. ...

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

Last edited by dunroof on 1st Dec 2012 7:37 am. Edited 1 time in total

dunroof wrote:

I remember a rather interesting case, two for the price of one!

Accident, public road, driver left locus. Police arrived at Reg Keepers home where a party was in progress. 172'd the Keeper, who said it was him. Another guy matching the description of the driver fleeing was also 172'd. He said he was the driver as well. Reasonable suspicion that either could have been the driver. Both failed the Alcolmeter Test, both arrested and processed Sec 6 RTA 88. Neither would give a sample, which in truth made things a lot easier. Anyway, both pled not guilty, went to trial, both convicted and both lost their licenses! Ho, ho, ho a Morrisons Special!

Cracking Don't you just love these f k wits, who think they're above the law. Nothing better than the car load being nicked, as they want to protect their 'friend'. I'm aware of a similar incident, but the driver eventually broke and the other three went to court with a cheeky obstruction chaser  Gone - TD4 XS Auto, Sumatra Black, Mud flaps and side strips, clear indicators, private plate, privacy glass

Last edited by dunroof on 30th Oct 2012 7:10 pm. Edited 1 time in total

That reminds me of one of the easiest lock ups ever. After assisting a drunk into the van, his drunken friend arrived. "You can't f ing arrest him. If you f ing arrest him, you'll have to arrest me." So the van door was re-openned, "Be my guest." Came the reply...