That's very helpful, thanks.

I've always been very anti drink-driving and wouldn't dream of getting behind the wheel without being stone cold sober, but this really does seem to ready to catch out the innocent.

It's well worth knowing all this information to stop self incrimination. For instance, if drinking in a pub (with no intention of driving), then don't have your car keys in your pocket. Unfortunately, this may make it a lot easier for a thief to take you car, but better that than a driving ban. If questioned by the police about your intentions, perhaps tell them that you don't intend to drive for at least 24 hours, just to be on the safe side; then it's simply up to you to make sure that you only drive when you're completely sober.

Ill certainly be a lot more careful not to be tricked into admitting, or becoming accused of, an offence that I have absolutely no intention of committing.

Tigger, I think that's the point - that you COULD commit an offence completely unknowingly, with NO intention at all to drive and reasonably assume that all was well. The innocent could be easily caught out. Seems very harsh (given the scum that get away with 'real crimes' grrr (Daily Mail type rant over... )
Is it another example of the Noo Labour "10 new laws a day" regime when they were governing us?  ...

Be true to yourself. That way happiness lies...

Last edited by dunroof on 1st Dec 2012 8:38 am. Edited 1 time in total

I've already admitted to paranoia

BTW do you mean expending, rather than extolling?  ...

Be true to yourself. That way happiness lies...

Damn and blast! I am in my element here and I have missed all this!

Forget intention. It is a strict liability offence (no need to show mens rea) and therefore does not require the crown to show intention. It is a reverse burden of proof on the defendant with regard the likelihood argument provided by EY earlier.

The Sheldrake v DPP case in 2003 that EY highlighted was reversed by the House of Lords in 2004 on appeal by the DPP.

Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions Attorney General's Reference (No 4 of 2002) [2005] 1 A.C. 264

Lord Carswell stated as follows: "I see nothing unreasonable or disproportionate in requiring him to prove on the balance of probabilities that there was no likelihood of his doing so. He should in my opinion have to do so, by adducing evidence which may be duly tested in court."

Interestingly in Moore v DPP [2010] EWHC 1822 the defendant was convicted of attempting to drive a motor vehicle in a public place whilst intoxicated contrary to S.5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The defendant argued that where the police stopped him wasn’t on the public road but the High Court held that it was an attempt to drive on the public road. The key element of this case was that the defendant had actually driven towards the road and was only metres from it when stopped by police. Therefore, the attempt was sufficiently close to the substantive offence.

Basically he had gone beyond merely preparatory as per the Criminal Attempts Act 1981

There we go. Job done.  LL.B (Hons) - University of Derby
LOT (Lord of Time) - University of Gallifrey

Thanks Doc.

So... Strict Liability puts us back where we were at the beginning of this thread, walking the dog near the car after a couple of drinks at home etc. If the police don't need to prove anything then we're all (in innocent activity) open to the charge and, if in this situation, we have to have taken extraordinary lengths to avoid the possibility of charge, just to access or walk near the car in this situation, including 'employing' someone else to walk the dog, separating house keys from car keys, wearing a big sign saying "I do not intend to drive" etc etc... surely too onerous.

Like I say, I'm ALL for prosecuting drink drivers, but not drink dog-walkers, or 'drink fetch-something-from-the-booters' or 'drink-I'll-just-check-that-the-car-is-locked'ers...'

Seems like anyone could be inadvertently caught out by this. Surely the reach of this law is excessive? ...

Be true to yourself. That way happiness lies...

Don't worry. The defendant only has to show there was no likelihood he would drive on the balance of probabilities. This is easier than beyond reasonable doubt.

Each case is judged on its merits but a good barrister should be able to convince a jury or justices (if it even gets to court). LL.B (Hons) - University of Derby
LOT (Lord of Time) - University of Gallifrey

Here's a quick example.

2 people (at different times in different parts of the country) are charged with being in charge of a vehicle whilst over the alcohol limit.

The first person has no criminal record and has never been arrested for anything before. He states he was getting a CD from the glovebox and wasn't going to drive the car. Therefore he argues no likelihood of driving.

The second person brings the exact same argument but he has a number of previous convictions, some of which are recent and include a conviction for the same offence with which he now stands accused. The crown can introduce the bad character evidence of the accused.

Introducing bad character evidence isn't always going to be allowed (especially if the crown are using it to bolster a weak case - R v Hanson 2005) but the tendency is to allow it in despite what might be seen as a prejudicial effect. So who is more likely to be convicted with that in mind?

I have just written a 2500 word essay on character evidence and the common law approach was always one of general exclusion but the Criminal Justice Act 2003 changed all that. LL.B (Hons) - University of Derby
LOT (Lord of Time) - University of Gallifrey

Thanks Doc. ... but... in the first case (blameless character etc), this would have gone to court? And with that the attendant worry, expense, uncertainty & disruption for what is a non-offence? I contend that the law should be more tightly defined... "being near" is just too loose... arguably in my living room after 2 glasses of wine, I am "being near" my car outside, especially with the damning evidence of car keys just feet away in the hall. Clearly a major criminal act is being planned!  ...

Be true to yourself. That way happiness lies...

I would guess that when you tighten up certain laws/regulations that is when loopholes can work there way in and allow the guilty to escape there punishment. Perhaps by leaving it loosely defined gives the DPP and the defendant the means to test it in court where hopefully common sense would prevail, or even before it reached that stage.

Thanks all for a good debate. I think you're all great mass debaters !!!  ...

Be true to yourself. That way happiness lies...

piattj wrote:

Thanks all for a good debate. I think you're all great mass debaters !!!

some better than others  2002 Honda VFR800
2002 Toyota Celica 140 Silver (mid life crisis - again!)
2007 FL2 GS Manual Army Reconnaissance Green + freel2.com sticker
2004 Toyota Celica 140 Black - Gone
2000 Toyota Celica 140 Silver - Gone
1998 Toyota Celica ST Pearl Green - Gone
1996 Nissan Primera 1.6 - Gone
1994 Rover Montego 1.6 Auto - Gone

I always maintain, one should aim as high as possible

Threads like this get a little sticky sometimes

I think The Doctor's summing up is admirable. The offence of drunk in charge is rarely used these days (certainly in my experience), as officers prefer to arrest for the far easier offence to prove of physically driving whilst over the prescribed limit. This will naturally depend on the circumstances, as it is never a good idea to allow a drunk driver to move the vehicle and then stop them, as there would be the possible danger to the public. May sound obvious, but there is the added benefit of catching drink drivers, as there is an obligatory disqualification of a minimum of 12 months. This is not the case for drunk in charge.

I got muddled up with the onus of proof being put on the crown, but can state that I've had little experience of drunk in chrage actually being convicted, as with good legal advice, they normally raise a reasonable defence, to convince the court there would be no liklihood of them driving whilst over the precribed limit.

On a different part of the RTA 1988, I'm still having a battle with the police in relation to my father's fatal collision, which the driver did not report, as required under S.170 RTA. The police are of the opinion the driver has committed no offences, as he called an ambulance and displayed a high level of care to my fatally wounded father. The police were never called and the driver cleared the scene, including washing the blood away. On the basis they driver was a 'nice' person, the police are of the opinion it is not in the public interests to prosecute

Sorry to go off on a tangent, but as you can probably appreicate it's taken over my life Gone - TD4 XS Auto, Sumatra Black, Mud flaps and side strips, clear indicators, private plate, privacy glass