Drinking alcohol in your motorhome

[n brown]

i've had my van turned over many times by the customs,who ignored the .22

 

[Channa]

as an interest can you carry an air gun in a Motor Home - I have always fancied having a few shots in the woods for the odd pidgeon but I would need land owners permission etc - any advice?

If my experience was to go by then no problem. It was a Stoeger .22 air rifle.

Channa

 

[John H]

The police’s view

A spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) said:

“If a person is in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place after consuming excess alcohol then that person is guilty of an offence unless they can prove at the time of the alleged offence the circumstances were such that there was no likelihood of their driving the vehicle.

The rules related to being in charge of a vehicle and alcohol are covered by The Road Traffic Act 1988. You can view it here Road Traffic Act 1988



You are right an excellant post because it's there plainly in black and white! A person is guilty of an offence unless THEY can prove that at the time of the alleged offence etc etc. 'Prove that at the time' doesn't necessarily mean at the time spoken to by a police officer.

In the scenario you have written in the previous post, you COULD (I haven't said should anywhere) lawfully be arrested for the offence of being drunk in charge. As previously stated the reason motorhomers arn't arrested in droves is nothing to do with the Road Traffic Act. You have yet to SHOW me where it is written in the legislation that a police officer must prove intent.

I will try once more to get past those blinkers of yours by reference to the two parts of your post I have highlighted:

1. "Doesn't necessarily" does not exclude "at the time spoken to by a police officer". If it did exclude that time then the phrase would have been " to later prove".

2. I don't have to show to anyone that a police officer must prove intent - for the simple reason that I have never said that is the only course of action open to him. What I have said is that the law is framed in such a way that the officer has the discretion to assess the situation and decide whether or not he believes the occupant is likely to drive while intoxicated. While weighing up whether or not he believes that, then he must consider intent. There is no other way (unless he has a time machine at his disosal) to assess likely future actions. That is not controversial. It is logical and the law is framed so as to allow him to do it (as I have repeatedly pointed out). If you think the law does not give him that discretion then please explain to me why the courts are not full of wildcamping motorhomers on charges of d.i.c.

I think this has gone far enough. Most sensible people reading this thread will now realise what the situation is. If you choose to live in your own little world then that is upto you. Personally, I'll take the word of the legislators, the courts and the Association of Chief Police Officers over yours any day of the week.

 

[Polar Bear]

I think it's time for a Bishops finger?

 

[izwozral]

I think it's time for a Bishops finger?

Isn't that a Nuns Delight?

 

[SteveM]

I will try once more to get past those blinkers of yours by reference to the two parts of your post I have highlighted:

1. "Doesn't necessarily" does not exclude "at the time spoken to by a police officer". If it did exclude that time then the phrase would have been " to later prove".

2. I don't have to show to anyone that a police officer must prove intent - for the simple reason that I have never said that is the only course of action open to him. What I have said is that the law is framed in such a way that the officer has the discretion to assess the situation and decide whether or not he believes the occupant is likely to drive while intoxicated. While weighing up whether or not he believes that, then he must consider intent. There is no other way (unless he has a time machine at his disosal) to assess likely future actions. That is not controversial. It is logical and the law is framed so as to allow him to do it (as I have repeatedly pointed out). If you think the law does not give him that discretion then please explain to me why the courts are not full of wildcamping motorhomers on charges of d.i.c.

I think this has gone far enough. Most sensible people reading this thread will now realise what the situation is. If you choose to live in your own little world then that is upto you. Personally, I'll take the word of the legislators, the courts and the Association of Chief Police Officers over yours any day of the week.

Indeed, the situation is very clear, if you are over the prescribed limit whilst in charge of a motor vehicle whilst on a road or public place, you could be arrested for being drunk in charge. It really is that plain, simple, and straightforward. People are free to make their choices as they see fit.

 

[John H]

Indeed, the situation is very clear, if you are over the prescribed limit whilst in charge of a motor vehicle whilst on a road or public place, you could be arrested for being drunk in charge. It really is that plain, simple, and straightforward. People are free to make their choices as they see fit.

At last! Could be but not would be. That is because the officer must assess the liklihood of you doing something that would cause you to be a danger to others. That is why neither you nor anyone else has been able to point to a single case of a wildcamper being arrested or prosecuted for being over the limit. It is not because we are a teetotal lot; it is because any officer at the scene has decided that the occupant is more likely to go to bed than drive. He has made a judgement based on intent.

 

[SteveM]

At last! Could be but not would be. That is because the officer must assess the liklihood of you doing something that would cause you to be a danger to others. That is why neither you nor anyone else has been able to point to a single case of a wildcamper being arrested or prosecuted for being over the limit. It is not because we are a teetotal lot; it is because any officer at the scene has decided that the occupant is more likely to go to bed than drive. He has made a judgement based on intent.

Show me where I said you 'would be'? I didn't, I pointed out that the law puts the onus on the driver to prove their intent not to drive. There is absolutely no provision in this piece of legislation that says that a police officer must consider intent.

In your scenario of campervan in the layby, would you consider that the arrest of that person for being drunk in charge to be unlawful?

 

[Wooie1958]

I think there is too much being consumed in this thread :cheers:

 

[John H]

Show me where I said you 'would be'? I didn't, I pointed out that the law puts the onus on the driver to prove their intent not to drive. There is absolutely no provision in this piece of legislation that says that a police officer must consider intent.

In your scenario of campervan in the layby, would you consider that the arrest of that person for being drunk in charge to be unlawful?

Good grief. First I never said the law states that a policeman must show intent. What I said was that the law is couched in a way that allows him to make a judgement and I referred to one of the parts that did just that. If he is to exercise that judgement, he then must consider intent. Short of having a time machine, there is no other way he can determine what action the suspecct may or may not take.

Let me give another example. Two men, carrying hammers, walk past a jeweller's window. One is not given second glance by the nearby copper;the other he approaches and questions. The first was clearly a carpenter going to a job; the second showed no obvious signs of needing the hammer for his trade and was acting suspiciously. That copper has made a judgement about likely future events. He can only have done that byasking himself about intent. It is not complicated, it is not compulsory under the law; it is common sense and most coppers do it all the time. Clear now?

And no - my arrest in the layby scenario wouldnot have been unlawful - I never said anything to imply it would.

 

[trevskoda]

i see it now,first we are all drunk and now we are going to get hammered.:scared::lol-049::wave:

 

[SteveM]

Good grief. First I never said the law states that a policeman must show intent. What I said was that the law is couched in a way that allows him to make a judgement and I referred to one of the parts that did just that. If he is to exercise that judgement, he then must consider intent. Short of having a time machine, there is no other way he can determine what action the suspecct may or may not take.

Let me give another example. Two men, carrying hammers, walk past a jeweller's window. One is not given second glance by the nearby copper;the other he approaches and questions. The first was clearly a carpenter going to a job; the second showed no obvious signs of needing the hammer for his trade and was acting suspiciously. That copper has made a judgement about likely future events. He can only have done that byasking himself about intent. It is not complicated, it is not compulsory under the law; it is common sense and most coppers do it all the time. Clear now?

And no - my arrest in the layby scenario wouldnot have been unlawful - I never said anything to imply it would.

Excellant we both agree that an arrest in your scenario would not be unlawful. So if you are in charge of your campervan whilst in a layby and over the limit you can be arrested and it wouldn't be unlawful.

Your hammer analogy doesn't compare unfortunately, for the majority of criminal offences intent must play a part in the police officers decisions, the guilty act and the guilty state of mind. Basically an act does not make a person guilty unless their mind is also guilty. In this case it is for the police to prove what the intent was. So you are absolutely right in your hammer scenario, the police must show act and intent.

This is not the case for drunk in charge. Police just need to show over the prescribed limit, in charge, road/public place. Hence we arrive at our agreed viewpoint an arrest in these circumstances would not be unlawful.

So why are the courts not heaving with motorhomers losing the licence? Well Firefox has given probably the best post and explanation of this whole subject in his post 138

I will ask this, is every person pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt and not having an exemption ticketed or prosecuted? Illegal number plates? Using a mobile phone? No, clearly not, some police officers have exercised discretion, and dealt with it another way, the offence has still been committed however, there is no provision in the law for discretion.

Have people been arrested and prosecuted for being drunk at the wheel of their car, yes we all know they have. What about in the back of an unconverted van? Certainly arrested, successfully prosecuted? Possibly.
What about a proper motorhome? I don't know of anyone arrested but I'm betting it has happened purely because there are some jobsworth police officers who will take every opportunity to make a lawful arrest, they will be the ones who who do not know the discretion word and we know they exist. Successful prosecutions? I don't know of any and I'm willing to bet there arnt any within the circumstances we have been discussing, not in drivers seat, tucked up in bed etc.

As I said people are free to make their choice, given the knowledge of what the law states.

 

[John H]

Excellant we both agree that an arrest in your scenario would not be unlawful. So if you are in charge of your campervan whilst in a layby and over the limit you can be arrested and it wouldn't be unlawful.

Your hammer analogy doesn't compare unfortunately, for the majority of criminal offences intent must play a part in the police officers decisions, the guilty act and the guilty state of mind. Basically an act does not make a person guilty unless their mind is also guilty. In this case it is for the police to prove what the intent was. So you are absolutely right in your hammer scenario, the police must show act and intent.

This is not the case for drunk in charge. Police just need to show over the prescribed limit, in charge, road/public place. Hence we arrive at our agreed viewpoint an arrest in these circumstances would not be unlawful.

So why are the courts not heaving with motorhomers losing the licence? Well Firefox has given probably the best post and explanation of this whole subject in his post 138

I will ask this, is every person pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt and not having an exemption ticketed or prosecuted? Illegal number plates? Using a mobile phone? No, clearly not, some police officers have exercised discretion, and dealt with it another way, the offence has still been committed however, there is no provision in the law for discretion.

Have people been arrested and prosecuted for being drunk at the wheel of their car, yes we all know they have. What about in the back of an unconverted van? Certainly arrested, successfully prosecuted? Possibly.
What about a proper motorhome? I don't know of anyone arrested but I'm betting it has happened purely because there are some jobsworth police officers who will take every opportunity to make a lawful arrest, they will be the ones who who do not know the discretion word and we know they exist. Successful prosecutions? I don't know of any and I'm willing to bet there arnt any within the circumstances we have been discussing, not in drivers seat, tucked up in bed etc.

As I said people are free to make their choice, given the knowledge of what the law states.

Of course I COULD have been arrested in the layby scenario but I wasn't. IF the law was as you describe it then I MUST have been arrested or else the policeman would have been derelict in his duty. Of course, that is nonsense. The law allows the officer to make a judgement. You use the word "discretion". That is a good choice of word. Please now explain how a police officer can use that discretion in the layby scenario without making a judgement as to intent. If you can do that, I will recommend you for the post of Lord Chief Justice when it next comes up

PS you seem to be confusing the phrase "not unlawful" with "compulsory". I don't know where you are going with that but it does rather smack of trying to divert the subject.

PPS I have no problem with Firefox's comments in post 138 - they do not conflict in any way with what I have been saying.

 

[SteveM]

Of course I COULD have been arrested in the layby scenario but I wasn't. IF the law was as you describe it then I MUST have been arrested or else the policeman would have been derelict in his duty. Of course, that is nonsense. The law allows the officer to make a judgement. You use the word "discretion". That is a good choice of word. Please now explain how a police officer can use that discretion in the layby scenario without making a judgement as to intent. If you can do that, I will recommend you for the post of Lord Chief Justice when it next comes up

PS you seem to be confusing the phrase "not unlawful" with "compulsory". I don't know where you are going with that but it does rather smack of trying to divert the subject.

PPS I have no problem with Firefox's comments in post 138 - they do not conflict in any way with what I have been saying.

Where have I said you WILL or MUST be arrested? The law sets out points to prove for each offence. For drunk in charge they are

a. Over the prescribed limit
b. In charge of
c. a mechanically propelled vehicle
d. Road or public place.

If these points are satisfied you could be arrested and that arrest would not be unlawful, there is no

e. and the driver is not in a campervan.

There is no confusion with 'compulsory', I can't think of any legislation that says 'and must be arrested'. In fact the opposite is true certain conditions must be necessary to make an arrest.

The whole point all along is that a police officer does not HAVE to consider intent in this offence and there are some out there who won't. As you said yourself you COULD have been arrested, that is what people need to consider when making their choices.

 

[John H]

Where have I said you WILL or MUST be arrested? The law sets out points to prove for each offence. For drunk in charge they are

a. Over the prescribed limit
b. In charge of
c. a mechanically propelled vehicle
d. Road or public place.

If these points are satisfied you could be arrested and that arrest would not be unlawful, there is no

e. and the driver is not in a campervan.

There is no confusion with 'compulsory', I can't think of any legislation that says 'and must be arrested'. In fact the opposite is true certain conditions must be necessary to make an arrest.

The whole point all along is that a police officer does not HAVE to consider intent in this offence and there are some out there who won't. As you said yourself you COULD have been arrested, that is what people need to consider when making their choices.

Back to basics, I see.

First, the criteria are nowhere near as cleaar as you state. As I and others have pointed out (including the courts and the Association of Chief Police Officers!) there are at least two points in the law that require interpretation: "in charge" and "attempting to drive". These CANNOT be determined without a judgement on the part of, first the police officer and subsequently his superiors, the CPS and the courts.

In other words, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for an officer to make a dettermination about whether to breathalyse and arrest WITHOUT making a judgement as to, among other things, INTENT.

Also, I never said that you used the word "must"; I said it was the only logical conclusion if we accept your interpretation of the law. I would be grateful if you could carefully read what I posted instead of jumping to conclusions.

You seem to be confusing several things. Not only the ones I have pointed out but the fact that his assessment does not have to be prescribed by law. He has to satisfy the law, of course, but in reaching his conclusion he MUST consider lots of things including (because of the nature of the offence) INTENT. I asked you earlier if you knew of any way that he could come to a conclusion without considering intent. You have steadfastly avoided answering that question.I wonder why?

 

[SteveM]

Back to basics, I see.

First, the criteria are nowhere near as cleaar as you state. As I and others have pointed out (including the courts and the Association of Chief Police Officers!) there are at least two points in the law that require interpretation: "in charge" and "attempting to drive". These CANNOT be determined without a judgement on the part of, first the police officer and subsequently his superiors, the CPS and the courts.

In other words, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for an officer to make a dettermination about whether to breathalyse and arrest WITHOUT making a judgement as to, among other things, INTENT.

Also, I never said that you used the word "must"; I said it was the only logical conclusion if we accept your interpretation of the law. I would be grateful if you could carefully read what I posted instead of jumping to conclusions.

You seem to be confusing several things. Not only the ones I have pointed out but the fact that his assessment does not have to be prescribed by law. He has to satisfy the law, of course, but in reaching his conclusion he MUST consider lots of things including (because of the nature of the offence) INTENT. I asked you earlier if you knew of any way that he could come to a conclusion without considering intent. You have steadfastly avoided answering that question.I wonder why?

Whilst you still go on about 'in charge' and 'attempting to drive' requiring interpretation for this offence. Driving or attempting to drive is Section 1a, seperate to 1b. You have understanding of the word 'or' as opposed to 'and'?

So having acknowledged that you could have been have been arrested in the layby in the circumstances you described, explain why.

Your 2nd paragraph is completely wrong and shows that you are struggling to understand the legislation as it is written.

Police officer attends, smells alcohol, notes that the person is in charge of a vehicle on a road or public place, requestS a preliminary breath test under Section 6 of the road traffic act, driver blows over the prescribed limit. Arrest can now be made. No intent considered as not required. Not impossible to breathalyse and arrest in these circumstances. Once at the custody centre if the person exceeds the prescribed limit on the evidential machine then they will be able to offer THEIR defence of no intention to drive in an interview.

 

[Wooie1958]

I`d just Taser them and be done with it :wacko:

 

[jacquigem]

isn't it wonderful that we are all different but the same in our love of this way of life?

 

[RoadTrek Boy]

I`d just Taser them and be done with it :wacko:

I think Tasering John H and SteveM a bit harsh, and is it legal, depends on intent I suppose. :rockroll::drive::cheers::cheers::cheers:

 

[SteveM]

I think Tasering John H and SteveM a bit harsh, and is it legal, depends on intent I suppose. :rockroll::drive::cheers::cheers::cheers:

Make sure we are holding hands, one wire in each........ :wacko::wacko: