Drinking alcohol in your motorhome

No insinuations - the impression that you were an idiot was supplied entirely by you!
 
The law says it has to be a mechanically propelled vehicle, NOT that it has to be in theprocess of being mechanically propelled at the time! If you regard that as pedantry, then all I can say is that it is useful being a pedant - it can avoid you a lot of trouble!
 
Mul said:
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.
Click to expand...

Can't disagree with the message in that - it is precisely what I have been saying. The phrase "suspicion of" implies a judgement about intent. If a copper knocks on your motorhome door and you are reeling drunk and in pyjamas then he might decide you are a danger to no-one but yourself and wish you goodnight. If,on the other hand,you are fully clothed, in the driving seat and stroppy he might ask you to blow into the machine! You are just as drunk in both crcumstances but he has made a judgement about intent. Simple really. The only mystery to me is that some people refuse to see it.

PS you are right about the "slip of the keyboard". I should have said "prosecuted" rather than "arrested".
 
Last edited:
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.
 
John H said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Firefox said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, no reason whatsoever why you should answer a knock at the door, and if the curtains are shut and no-one can be seen then there isn't much else that they can do. However it is worth considering that if you can be seen and decide to play possum, a lack of response may result in a concern for welfare response.

If you do answer the door or engage in a conversation through a window, a police officer may decide to request a breath test (can't just request it, there has to be an element of suspicion that you may have consumed alcohol or have some in your system). Once that request has been made then it is an offence to fail to provide.
 
Because of the amount of alcohol ( purely medicinal ) i carry in the van i had to have air suspension fitted and uprate the load rating on my tyres.
 
SteveM said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Firefox said:
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.
Click to expand...

not here they will put a batton through your window if they think you are inside and drunk,cops must be soft in england.
 
Firefox said:
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.
Click to expand...


Ah OK ............. so if the coppers knock and you don`t answer do they just go away and leave you alone ?
 
Yes. Unless they have a warrant to enter, or a serious or dangerous incident has taken place, they can't enter. Your van or car counts the same as your house.

The steps to take if you have been drinking are

1. Make sure you are parked not obstructing the highway or contravening a TRO.

2. Close the curtains and windows. Lock the doors.

3. Engage in quiet activities or sleeping.

4. Don't answer the door.

As I said previously you'll see a lot of "advice" about giving the keys to a partner or hiding them in a cupboard. This is all irrelevant. Avoid contact with anyone until you are fit to drive is a much better policy.
 
John H said:
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.
Click to expand...

How about we stick to the discussion around intent, which was the main point of your argument that a police officer needs to show intent to drive? The other elements of the offence which do exist 'mechanically propelled vehicle, in charge, public road etc can be discussed forever but their meanings currently are in definitions, case law and whoever is presidings judgement.

The key phrase is not the one about 'attempting' that is just part 1a of Section 5 of the Road Traffic Act at the end of that sentence is the word 'or' which leads on to part 1b which deals with is in charge of. A police officer needs only to satisfy himself of part 1a OR part 1b. This has already been pointed out by another poster but you continue to ignore it.

I will ask again please show me where in the Road Traffic Act it says that a police officer must show intent to drive when proving an offence of drunk in charge of a motor vehicle?
 
Last edited:
Do what I do. Insure the wife for the vehicle and give her the keys.

Fortunately, my wife doesn't drink.
 
fazerloz is spot on apply for a temporary events licence 28 days before the event and if you don't hear anything off you go !!!! What he did'nt tell you any police officer rank of inspector or above can immeadiately issue a prohibition order normally 24 hours which could scupper the idea.

little known factoid, is the only premises that dont need a licence to sell alcohol is a train. The impracticality of registering with each LA being the reason.....which is why they close the bar in a station and serve when the train is rolling again.

The licencing act 2003 has its quirks

Channa
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Back
Top