Safe Speed Forums

It's about a point in Law.

They have to make a demarkation somewhere so 'drunk in charge' means that if you have the keys you are by that action, 'in charge'. After all at this point (by the definition) able to in a normal state drive away if you so chose.

The 'insanity' of it is the common sense angle - but it was 'obvious' that he was asleep on the back seat ... etc. etc.

To most people the Police making sensible and proportional intent arrests, are perceived as fair, but when not, in the eyes of common sense, seem like persecution as the 'intent' may otherwise, obviously 'not' be there.
There is a fine line between authority trying to prevent crime, and acting with appropriate enforcement.
We hope it is always judged fairly and appropriately, but sadly targets become the most important factor, and the 'people' are no longer 'cared for' but are simply a 'forest to eat out on', to please the boss, who pleases the politicians.
Then the public no longer feels that the police are there to protect us, but simply to pick us off as targets. Hence the large rift that is growing ever wider between the public and the police, and until this is begun to be mended it continues to grow - very very sad.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

Of course if you were completely plastered you could argue that you weren't even in charge of yourself let along the vehicle you were driving!!!

Quite right if you had non-alcoholic drinks that were 'spiked' you would have a defence, but not if you had alcoholic drinks that were 'spiked further'. You can not claim that you genuinely mistook the strength of the alcohol, although the defence of mistake like this could be used in other crimes.

But as SafeSpeedv2 points out, the reality of getting sufficiently strong evidence for anyone to believe you is pretty slim - but not impossible. I understand that if your pal admitted "spiking", regardless of whether or not he knew you were going to drive, then your pal who be facing similar charges (Transfer of Mailce). Best bet is to get dear old Aunty Flo, who’s 84 and given up driving to take the rap, providing she can convince the magistrates that she was out with the lads in a Lap-dancing club having a senile moment buying you vodka and coke when you asked for coke.

Hence I still say that the genuine "camper" has nothing to fear by sitting in the driver’s seat with engine running. At law he is not in charge of a vehicle and does not have any intention to drive it. However, I would advise someone to be mindful that their situation may be misconstrued and perhaps avoid opening the booze until the van is on levelling blocks or a tent put up and avoid the driver's seat if the engine must be started.

There may also be some confusion on just what strict liability offence means in drink driving. Normally the prosecution has to prove that you did the ‘criminal act’ AND they you did it ‘willingly’ i.e. it was no accident, mistake or beyond your control. BOTH parts must be proved. It is not sufficient to prove that the defendant did the ‘criminal act’ alone – except in strict liability offences.

In Strict Liability, the prosecution only has to prove the ‘act’ was done and not that it was done ‘willingly’. If the defence falls silent on the ‘willingness’ to do the ‘act’ then a conviction will follow. However, the defence has the opportunity to show that the ‘act’ was done against the defendants ‘will’, and if proved there will be no conviction.

You may often read “If you caught drink driving, you’re done, because it’s a strict liability offence.” That is very misleading and should not be interpreted as you will automatically be convicted if you are over the limit. There are defences although the outcome of litigation is never certain.

Another interesting defence to drink driving is prevention of a crime!

The quote is actually very accurate. For drink driving offences, the available defences very rarely succeed. By comparison, the statutory defence for drunk in charge does succeed fairly often.

While it is true to say that the outcome of a trial is never certain, where drink driving is concerned the result is almost always "guilty". Bearing in mind the level of punishment meted out to those convicted of drink driving and the loss of discount off sentence that goes with a "not guilty" plea, it is vital to get properly qualified legal advice from an experienced lawyer before deciding on a plea.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

What is the Statutory Defence for Drunk in Charge?

I accept that the "outcome" is nearly always guilty, however I would contribute that to the fact that the "innocent" cases get weeded out through the litigation process and never in fact come to trial or even a charged. And I would whole heartedly agree that when facing the consequences of a drink drive conviction, there is a higher percentage of not-guilty pleas made on a wing and a prayer.

My point was that if someone believes they have a genuine defence, they should not be under the illusion of the "quote" that they have no hope because of strict liability and every case should be considered on its own individual merits rather than statistical likelihood.

Having re-read Fisherman's claim that the quote “If you caught drink driving, you’re done, because it’s a strict liability offence.” I would urge anyone to re-read my post that this was set in and the reasoning and explanation of the implications of strict liability offences.

Whilst Fisherman does not object to my reasoning, I strongly disagree when Fisherman says "The quote is actually very accurate" based on my reasoning in the original post. If you are caught drink driving, you are NOT done because it is a STRICT LIABILITY offence - you will have every opportunity in a fair court to prove your innocence and the magistrates will not automatically convict you for being charged with a strict liability offence - this would breach ECHR, Right to a fair trial.

If you are caught drink driving, strict liability doesn't not imply that you can not defend the charge - you have as much chance of proving your innocence as in any other charge. Do not be mis-led by the high rate of conviction either, every case turns on its own facts.

I would advise anyone to ignore the "quote" and seek proffessional legal advice on their own case if they believe that they have not acted criminally. Usually the CPS will see sense and drop the charges if you have a good defence, hence we only hear of the more perverse aquittals in the media.

Right, a girl (or a guy) can be deemed as "too intoxicated" to give consent to sex, and someone charged with sexual assualt/rape.

So if the law recognises a level of intoxication that abdicates responsibility, why is there not a defence of "drunk in charge" that uses this?

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction

You can defend drink-driving with the defence of intoxication as I discussed in my earlier post 16/1 14:18

You point to a defence based on the charged "unwittingly" becoming intoxicated without "intent", I'm talking about someone intentfully drinking then being too intoxicated to make a "responsible" decision.

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction

A defence against a charge of being drunk is that you were too drunk to know you were drunk? I can't quite put my finger on the flaw in that but I think there is one.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

I think this would be analogous if drunkeness was a valid defence for the rapist (too drunk to know the other person was not consenting), rather than the person raped. Which I assume is not the case.

In the scenario described by Hairyben, the equivalent would be the car being too intoxicated to refuse to be driven.

When Voluntarily Intoxicated, then the law’s position is that the defendant knew the risks of intoxication and willingly took them, of which being “irresponsible” is one of them and must therefore be deemed responsible for becoming “irresponsible” – if that makes sense?

Generally the law considers what is reasonable behaviour by the standards of the “ordinary, reasonable, sober person”. This means the drunk has to show he was as reasonable as the sober person, and hence being “irresponsible due to drink” is a non-starter.

The simple explanation for the law’s position, is that otherwise it would be anarchy if people could freely commit crimes when drunk, when drink is at the root of much crime.

So a "victim" can be considered "legally not responsible" when voluntarily intoxicated but a defendant not? Is this not an inequality?



Oh I agree, I'm just curious at the inconsistency.

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction

Well it's certainly an inconsitency that seems to be brought about to increase the rate of rape convictions. Whilst I appreciate the difficulties and concerns connected with such prosecutions, it is alarming that the goal posts get moved to make a statistic look better. In practice when a victim says "I was so drunk I couldn't have given consent" they get a rougher ride by the Defence Council who can challenge the victims evidence.

It would seem that just that effect is going to give a defence more opportunity to exploit a victim's credibility and the main problem with rape is that victims back out of a prosecutions for the fear of the ordeal they may face (intercourse is rarely denied, it usually the defence that the victim is a "slapper" and was "up for it"), and so I anticipate that even less allegations of rape will result in a convictions assuming that they are still reported at the same levels in the first place.

We are not very far apart on this. Anybody charged with an alcohol related motoring offence can, of course, mount a defence against it and I have not suggested otherwise. Some aspects of a defence are common to all alcohol related motoring offences. You can challenge on the grounds of it not being a public place, the testing procedure being carried out incorrectly etc etc. This gives you a chance to introduce a reasonable doubt into the prosecution case. However, if the prosecution do prove their case things then become more difficult.

Because the alcohol related motoring offences are of strict liability the things that can be offered as a defence are limited. Saying you didn't know you were over the limit, or you didn't know it was an offence to refuse a breath test will not help you. Even if you can prove it. For drunk in charge there is a statutory defence. ie one set in law. That of showing, on balance of probabilities that there was no likelihood of driving while still over the limit. That is what what a colleague of mine calls a real world defence. By which she meant it is something that happens quite often.

For drink driving and attempting to drive while drunk there is no statutory defence. There are a number of possibilities that have arisen via appeals leading to higher court decisions that are binding on the lower courts. The usual one quoted is the spiked drinks defence. the reality is that even if your drinks were spiked, and the person who did it admits doing so, it doesn't constitute a cast iron defence. It does give a court the option to consider it as "special reasons not to endorse", but that is all. Courts can, and do, disqualify in such circumstances.

The other defence commonly raised is "I had to drive it was an emergency". It really needs to be a genuine life or death emergency, with the defendant having the power to save life. Even then it doesn't always work. Part of the test is that a "sober, reasonable and responsible friend of the defendant, present at the time but unable to drive would have advised the defendant to drive". This can sometimes amount to special reasons not to endorse. Still leaves you with a drink drive conviction though.


My view is that you have a lot less chance of a successful defence against strict liability alcohol related motoring offences than you do against (for example) a driving without due care or dangerous driving charge.

The high rate of conviction for these offences exists because they are so difficult to defend. They do all turn on the individual facts, usually against the defendant.


Do you have any figures to support this? Please understand this not an attempt to provoke an argument, its just that I have been unable to find any figures for cases dropped before court and would be very interested to find out about it.

One thing Lucy and i agree on is that defences against alcohol related motoring charges are complex and need the advice of a properly qualified and experienced lawyer.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

I both agree and disagree with you on that one Ben.

In my younger days I was a bit of a handful, and regularly spent time in the cells for one thing or another.
In the early nineties I found myself in front of a magistrate who quite clearly convicted me on "balance of probability", even though several people gave evidence to corroborate my version of events.

My last court case was a few years ago, and I was sure as eggs are eggs that I was going to be found guilty.....yet I was acquitted on "balance of probability".

While the early nineties conviction could be said to be unfair because it was obvious the magistrate decided guilt on gut feeling (his gut feeling was actually right anyway), it could also be said that the acquittal was also unfair from a justice point of view because I was in fact guilty as hell.

Some you win, and some you lose....and just because one magistrate lets personal feeling cloud their judgement, it doesn't mean they all do.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

Are you talking about court procedure in general or "drunk in charge" specific? My comment concerned the specific charge.

This one's already done my head in once... Way I see it, it's not dissimilar to carrying a knife set home from the cooking shop and being automatically "guilty" of murderous intent, and your only defence is to prove beyond doubt to the court you weren't going to murder anybody that day. It's a totally presumptuous charge thats open to and is being abused.

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction

Well, quite, getting in a car that drunk is a whole 'nother level of wrecklessness.

It's about the potential to do harm. Whilst you CAN kill a ped by whacking into them whilst you're on a pushbike it's highly unlikely, whereas it's more likely if you're driving a car.

So, getting on a cycle after a few beers in peanuts compared to getting in a car.

Both are wrong, but the car one is wronger IMO.

All the same weepy .. check out RTA 1988 s 301(1) I have given a link recently

You do not do anything which can harm someone if you judge yourself as unfit to drive or ride whatever A drunk cyclist can make a fatal error and cause a crash with an otherwise innocent driver when all is said and done. Not fair on that innocent if they do the "unexpected on him"

You thus owe it to yourselves to judge fitness and take a taxi if in any doubt so how you travel


I am trying to be fair minded and further the debate Personally I do not ride if squify .. nor do I drive. But that's me. I think I am decent and open minded all the same

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

And neither do I.

But I still think that somebody who gets in a car after a few drinks and strikes somebody causing them injury should receive more of a punishment than somebody who get's on a cycle drunk and does exactly the same damage to somebody they hit.

And somebody who has had a few, then walks into somebody causing the same amount of damage less punishment than the cyclist.

And somebody who gets into a 18 wheeler, more punishment than the car driver.