Wooie1958
Full Member
- Posts
- 16,534
- Likes
- 16,496
Enough to drive you to drink:cheers::cheers::cheers:
My misses used to do that every sunday lunchtime.
She would also pick me up again a couples of hours later if i`d behaved myself.
Enough to drive you to drink:cheers::cheers::cheers:
I've highlighted defence above again. Again by this time you're in court defending. You've already been nicked. You don't provide a defence at the roadside. You can provide reasons / excuses but not a defence. A defence is against a charge, done at the nick.
I've highlighted my keyword below OR (and NOT) AND Ya can be nicked for 1a OR 1b ...
(1)If a person—
(a)drives or attempts to drive a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, or
(b)is in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place,after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit he is guilty of an offence.
(2)It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1)(b) above to prove that at the time he is alleged to have committed the offence 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.
(3)The court may, in determining whether there was such a likelihood as is mentioned in subsection (2) above, disregard any injury to him and any damage to the vehicle.
then
"If you arenot over the limityou cannot be arrested for being drumk in charge under any circumstances."
Under any circumstances - Oops slip of the keyboard again, IMHO !What Happened to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (amended) Section, can't remember, If you fail to provide sufficient info to identify yourself, too drunk, obstructive, for your own safety even (inebriated) - that'd be section 25 btw, and would get the Officer out of various holes. I'd arrest you for being drunk if you satisfied the above on the basis of satisfying the reasonable test of "reasonable suspicion. The Officer might be wrong but only has to satisfy to the Custody Sgt any of the above grounds. On the better safe than sorry ethos, they won't be pulled for being wrong providing they were acting in good faith. There's a lot stacked against Joe Public when you find yourself losing your liberty.
And no-one is arrested for any offence ever without "Suspicion of" ... It's important because the Officer isn't Judge / Jury and doesn't have ALL the facts at the time of the incident.
Then, If the custody SGT doesn't agree you can be de-arrested. If the CPS doesn't agree the charge will be dropped . If the 12 Good and Judge disagree you're free.
Complicated subject innit !!!
Onwards.
Mul.
Ignoring the stupidity in your post,you have inadvertently hit upon a truth. I only give advice or comment when I am sure of my ground. There are lots of things I know nothing about and do not attempt to get involved with. When, however, something comes up that I do know about (and where somebody might be giving misleadingor unclear information) then I do get involved. It is a policy I strongly recommend to you (since you seem to be in need of it!). Have a nice day.
Why should you even answer a knock on the door if you are asleep? You don't have to let anyone in your vehicle. It is your private space. Know your rights.
Unfortunately you have got involved in something you are not fully clear of. The offence we are talking about is drunk in charge, a police officer does not have to suspect, assess, consider, believe , assume or prove that that person intends to drive, please show me where in the legislation it says that they do. If it gets to court it will be for that person to prove to the magistrate that they had no intention to drive.
A police officer has to prove that they were over the prescribed limit, in charge of, a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or public place. Now some of these aspects may be argued by the legal eagles but the bottom line is asleep in your camper on the side of the road, with the keys nearby and over the limit could justifiably see you arrested and taken to custody. Blow over the limit on the evidential machine and following your interview when you stated that you were asleep for the night and didn't intend to drive, the CPS may send you to court to explain to the magistrate your lack of intent, or they may consider that given your explaination that there is not a reasonable chance of a successful prosecution to halt the case.
So in summary, over the limit in your van and you could get arrested and may or may not be prosecuted.
Why should you even answer a knock on the door if you are asleep? You don't have to let anyone in your vehicle. It is your private space. Know your rights.
Why should you even answer a knock on the door if you are asleep? You don't have to let anyone in your vehicle. It is your private space. Know your rights.
I'm sorry but that is in part misleading. The phrase "in charge", as has been fully explained by both me and others, is far broader than that. You can, for example, be considered to be "in charge" even when not in the vehicle. Also, you do not have to actually be on what most people would regard as the public highway. You can be arrested in a pub car park, a caravan site or even your own drive. I have already explained that the key phrase in the legislation is the one about "attempting" to drive. That phrase requires interpretation and it is initially up to the officer to make that judgement. It may or may not be stopped at a later stage in the process but the officer HAS to make a judgement - otherwise he would end up arresting everybody in a motorhome who is over the limit.
Do what I do. Insure the wife for the vehicle and give her the keys.
Fortunately, my wife doesn't drink.
How much to borrow her for a fortnight?
I'll give you 50 quid.
I,ll tell Julie wot you said be scared:scared: