News1 min ago
Drunk in charge of car
I was in my local and when I left went to the car to get my bus/train timetable. I put the keys in the ignition to light up the time display. (I don't wear a watch and wasn't going back in the pub either). The barman comes out and says "You're not driving tonight Dave" and takes the keys out and goes back in the pub. Anyway, 30 secs later and off-duty copper came out and arrested me, called for a police car and I was well over the limit. Question is, is the arrest valid as at the point of arrest I had no keys? The barman in question, although he made a statement and now regrets he did so, he's not coming to the court hearing to be questioned on it. Anyone know if technically I wasn't "in charge" . Thanks.
Answers
1 to 16 of 16
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Davypops. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
This does not sound right. Did the barman send the off duty policeman out to arrest you or was the copper going to arrest you anyway and the barman was helping you by taking the keys off you?
I wouldn't have thought that an off duty cop can make an arrest which then entailed a van coming to pick you up.
It's a strange one and you need some legal advice. I'm assuming you had no intention of driving.
Good luck.
I wouldn't have thought that an off duty cop can make an arrest which then entailed a van coming to pick you up.
It's a strange one and you need some legal advice. I'm assuming you had no intention of driving.
Good luck.
Have a look here http://www.ukpoliceonline.co.uk/lofiversion/in dex.php?t22815.html for the answer given by S�ren at 2.44 pm. It seems you will be okay.
Nobody on this site or on �UKPoliceOnline� will be able to give you a definitive answer.
This is an ideal case for testing by means of a trial in the Magistrates� court. The law cannot legislate for every eventuality. It does not say, for example, that if you have no keys in your possession then you are not �in charge�, neither does it say that if you have keys that you are. You could have had the keys taken from you by somebody who thinks you are drunk and about to drive. You would probably be found guilty. You could have keys in your hand and the car is in a locked garage ten miles away. You would almost certainly be acquitted. (The latter is rather extreme I know, and would almost certainly never result in a charge being made. It's just to demonstrate the point).
If you are charged and you maintain a Not Guilty plea, all the facts of the case will have to be put before the Court. It is for the prosecution to prove your guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Both sides will be free to cite the outcome of previous cases (especially those which went to appeal in a higher court) where the circumstances were similar.
This is an ideal case for testing by means of a trial in the Magistrates� court. The law cannot legislate for every eventuality. It does not say, for example, that if you have no keys in your possession then you are not �in charge�, neither does it say that if you have keys that you are. You could have had the keys taken from you by somebody who thinks you are drunk and about to drive. You would probably be found guilty. You could have keys in your hand and the car is in a locked garage ten miles away. You would almost certainly be acquitted. (The latter is rather extreme I know, and would almost certainly never result in a charge being made. It's just to demonstrate the point).
If you are charged and you maintain a Not Guilty plea, all the facts of the case will have to be put before the Court. It is for the prosecution to prove your guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Both sides will be free to cite the outcome of previous cases (especially those which went to appeal in a higher court) where the circumstances were similar.
"The court in the Case Law of Sheldrake v DPP in 2003 gave the folowing meaning to the statutory defence.
"It is a defence for a person charged with this offence to demonstrate from the evidence an arguable case that at the time he was alleged to have committed the offence, the circumstances were such that there was no likelihood of his driving the vehicle while the proportion of alcohol in his breath blood or urine remained likely to exceed the prescribed limit."
The court later clarified
"It is not sufficient for the accused to show that, at the time of his arrest, he was so hopelessly drunk as to be incapable of driving a motor vehicle; he must show, for example, that he had handed the keys of the vehicle to someone else or that, realising that he was adversely affected by drink, he had taken a room for the night."
While he did not give the keys to someone else, he did not have the keys so why is that not a defence?
"It is a defence for a person charged with this offence to demonstrate from the evidence an arguable case that at the time he was alleged to have committed the offence, the circumstances were such that there was no likelihood of his driving the vehicle while the proportion of alcohol in his breath blood or urine remained likely to exceed the prescribed limit."
The court later clarified
"It is not sufficient for the accused to show that, at the time of his arrest, he was so hopelessly drunk as to be incapable of driving a motor vehicle; he must show, for example, that he had handed the keys of the vehicle to someone else or that, realising that he was adversely affected by drink, he had taken a room for the night."
While he did not give the keys to someone else, he did not have the keys so why is that not a defence?
It may well be, TCL.
But it will be a matter for the court to decide. We only have a brief outline here and, with respect to Davy, only one version of events. A court will take probably half a day to hear what we have been told.
Davy's question related to whether he was properly arrested. I believe that he was.
Evidently so did the CPS as they authorised the charge.
But it will be a matter for the court to decide. We only have a brief outline here and, with respect to Davy, only one version of events. A court will take probably half a day to hear what we have been told.
Davy's question related to whether he was properly arrested. I believe that he was.
Evidently so did the CPS as they authorised the charge.
It seems fairly straightforward to be honest. He was well over the legal limit, he was in the vehicle, had started it up and then had the keys taken off him and was subsequently arrested. There's a witness to the fact that he was in charge of the vehicle and the witness has made a statement to that effect to the police. I can't see what the argument would be in his defence. It's no argument that it wasn't the police who removed his key.
Thanks all for your answers. The balance seems to be that I was in charge. All I was thinking is that specifically at the moment of arrest - no keys in possession - and the said barman does not want to appear in court to back up his statement, so, has the link (keys present/keys not present) gone? Thanks anyway. Will post a result out of interest after hearing.
1 to 16 of 16
