Drinking alcohol in your motorhome

To be fair I thought it was Avery enjoyable debate on a subject dear to my heart.Will carry on as before through guys and hope common sense prevails!
 
SteveM said:
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.
Click to expand...

What on earth are you talking about? Section 1a refers to "attempting to drive"; section 1b refers to "in charge". The OR is not in dispute. Both sections contain elments that require interpretation (or do you not place any weight on the opinion of the Association of Chief Police Officers?).

I could have been arrested if the police officer decided that I was a potential danger but he did not - because he made a sensible judgement that I was not likely to drive!

You are correct in that one of us is struggling to understand the legislation but I am afraid you've hit upon the wrong one! If you still consider your view more significant that mine, the courts, the ACPO and virtually every other authority in the country then please continue to dig that hole for yourself.

And I am still waiting to an answer to my question - but there is none, is there?
 
jacquigem said:
To be fair I thought it was Avery enjoyable debate on a subject dear to my heart.Will carry on as before through guys and hope common sense prevails!
Click to expand...

And therein lies the key - common sense. Unfortunately, it is not as common as you might hope ;)
 
In the interests of legal research my wife and I are off to the Lakes at the weekend for 2 weeks and because being the brave, selfless people we are we shall be drinking in the van copious amounts of red wine in the evenings to see what happens with regards to prosecutions. Wish us luck!

Drew
 
drewdt3 said:
In the interests of legal research my wife and I are off to the Lakes at the weekend for 2 weeks and because being the brave, selfless people we are we shall be drinking in the van copious amounts of red wine in the evenings to see what happens with regards to prosecutions. Wish us luck!

Drew
Click to expand...

Park up where you are not an obstruction to anybody else, be polite to the officer (but don't offer him aglass!) and I can almost guarantee that he will make a more sensible judgement than some have on this thread! Bon voyage :D
 
John H said:
What on earth are you talking about? Section 1a refers to "attempting to drive"; section 1b refers to "in charge". The OR is not in dispute. Both sections contain elments that require interpretation (or do you not place any weight on the opinion of the Association of Chief Police Officers?).

I could have been arrested if the police officer decided that I was a potential danger but he did not - because he made a sensible judgement that I was not likely to drive!

You are correct in that one of us is struggling to understand the legislation but I am afraid you've hit upon the wrong one! If you still consider your view more significant that mine, the courts, the ACPO and virtually every other authority in the country then please continue to dig that hole for yourself.

And I am still waiting to an answer to my question - but there is none, is there?
Click to expand...

This discussion is about being drunk in charge and intent, yet you consistently bring in attempting to drive, why? Attempting to drive is not relevant here.

So just to be clear, in your opinion ,a police officer who satisfies himself of a-d in post 153, but makes no judgement or assessment of that persons intention to drive, and arrests them has then made an unlawful arrest? Or an improper arrest? Or a poor arrest? Or an unwise arrest?

Now before you hit the, 'the breath test and arrest would be impossible without the officer making a determination on intent' button (post 154) a preliminary breath can be required if the officer suspects the presence of alcohol and b.-d. are in place. A positive sample provides enough to satisfy a. for the purpose of an arrest

The answer has been plainly written but you're not accepting it. Let's go back to the hammer scenario you have skipped over, you show me where it is written anywhere that a police officer MUST show, prove, consider or assess intent when dealing with a drunk in charge at the roadside, and I will show you were it is written that a police officer MUST prove intent for robbery or theft (with a hammer walking past jewellers). I know mine is written down and I know yours isn't, but go on show me. Maybe the lawmakers for this traffic offence were a bit forgetful when the legislation was written.
 
John H said:
Park up where you are not an obstruction to anybody else, be polite to the officer (but don't offer him aglass!) and I can almost guarantee that he will make a more sensible judgement than some have on this thread! Bon voyage :D
Click to expand...
And if he does'nt, shoot him in the face with an air pistol..... :cheers:
 
I'm gonna start a new thread called SMOKING WEED IN YOUR MOTORHOME, anyone up for a scrap? :D
 
I think I am going to have to research this and every time I park up for the night I will have a wee dram or a beer and see how long before the police take an interest. Might be a long project:)

Richard
 
Cumberland Building society really do have consistently competitive mortgages though:cool:
 
It'll all be ok if a four year old girl cycles past with stabilizers and on the footpath, blue lights and siren wailing, can just see the chase on police camera action "she's done a right,right,right into the playgroup center, helicopter assistance required".
 
Last year while wilding in cornwall we decided to book on to a caravan club site for one night as we fancied a drink. The wardens then told us if they required us to vacate the site during the night due to an emergency we could find ourselves with drink drive problems.........can't win!!
 
SteveM said:
This discussion is about being drunk in charge and intent, yet you consistently bring in attempting to drive, why? Attempting to drive is not relevant here.

So just to be clear, in your opinion ,a police officer who satisfies himself of a-d in post 153, but makes no judgement or assessment of that persons intention to drive, and arrests them has then made an unlawful arrest? Or an improper arrest? Or a poor arrest? Or an unwise arrest?

Now before you hit the, 'the breath test and arrest would be impossible without the officer making a determination on intent' button (post 154) a preliminary breath can be required if the officer suspects the presence of alcohol and b.-d. are in place. A positive sample provides enough to satisfy a. for the purpose of an arrest

The answer has been plainly written but you're not accepting it. Let's go back to the hammer scenario you have skipped over, you show me where it is written anywhere that a police officer MUST show, prove, consider or assess intent when dealing with a drunk in charge at the roadside, and I will show you were it is written that a police officer MUST prove intent for robbery or theft (with a hammer walking past jewellers). I know mine is written down and I know yours isn't, but go on show me. Maybe the lawmakers for this traffic offence were a bit forgetful when the legislation was written.
Click to expand...

Ok, since you still refuse to accept the bleeding obvious, let us approach this from a different angle. Let us start at a point we can both agree on. Not INTENDING to drive is an absolute defence in law to a charge of d.i.c. If, in the layby scenario earlier, the officer had arrested me and if it had gone to court, all I would have to do to be found not guilty would be to show that I did not INTEND to drive. I would not have to pove anything else. It follows, therefore, that INTENT is central to the offence. INTENT takes precedence over any other aspect of the offence and INTENT takes precedence over any other interpretation of the offence. Thus, if the officer at the time did not consider my INTENT he would be setting up a case to fail. He has acted lawfully but stupidly. As I have said many times before, there is no compulsion in law for himto consider INTENT but there is a compulsion under common sense - just as there is no compulsion in law for someone to wear more than a t-shirt and shorts in sub-zero temperatures but I think he would be generally regarded as an idiot for doing so! Back to the layby - I am willing to bet that if that officer repeatedly arrested without using his brain cells then he would be taken aside by his superiors and told not to be such a prat.
 
SteveM said:
SNIP.e :)

I'll wager John H returns for the last word though :beer:
Click to expand...

You were right! However, if I can slip a bit of info in about INTENT. We did not have to prove intent if I opened a bag and found a bunch of keys and a hammer or a jemmy!

Going equipped for stealing, etc. Sect. 25 Theft Act 1968

(1)A person shall be guilty of an offence if, when not at his place of abode, he has with him any article for use in the course of or in connection with any burglary or theft.
 
siimplyloco said:
You were right! However, if I can slip a bit of info in about INTENT. We did not have to prove intent if I opened a bag and found a bunch of keys and a hammer or a jemmy!

Going equipped for stealing, etc. Sect. 25 Theft Act 1968

(1)A person shall be guilty of an offence if, when not at his place of abode, he has with him any article for use in the course of or in connection with any burglary or theft.
Click to expand...

In that case, I bet the carpenters in your neighbourhood were heartily fed up with you! :raofl:

"For use in......" Tell me, how did you decide that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Back
Top