'drinking and driving'

by **brianhaddon** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 12:33 pm

Most people would, I am sure, agree that driving whilst under the influence of drink is a definite no-no. However, the concept of attempting to drive whilst under the influence of drink is a bit more suspect. What do forumers think of the following situation? A person has a car with a flat battery and every so often goes down to it and attempts to start it. Unfortunately on one of these attempts he is under the influence of alcohol and someone sees him doing it and calls the police. The police arrive and arrest him. They also attempt to start the car but fail. He is initially charged with drinking and driving but then this is changed to being in charge of a vehicle whilst under the influence of alcohol and attempting to drive a vehicle whilst under the influence of alcohol. Both these charges apparently have severe consequences on his licence and ability to drive. (Anyone know what sort of penalties they all incur?) What I have difficulty with is the concept of charging someone with attempting to drive a vehicle that demonstrably didn't work. Real situation - not me, someone I know. Anyone have any thoughts?
Brian Haddon

by **MiniClubmanEstate** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:48 pm

First of all were they trying this in the street or a private driveway?
I would wonder why somebody was trying to start the car if they didn't intend to drive it. If the battery was low then you wouldn't want to start the car until you could drive it as all you would be doing is taking even more power from the battery, it takes a long time for a low battery to charge from the alternator.
Those are my thoughts anyway.

by **vonhosen** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 4:40 pm

Drunk in charge carries similar sentences as drink/drive itself.
For drink drive OR att drink drive it is an obligatory disqualification, level 5 fine & you can be imprisoned for up to 6 months.
For in charge it is an obligatory 10 points, discretionary disqualification, level 4 fine & upto 3 months imprisonment.

In charge is not the same as attempting to drive whilst drunk, that is a seperate offence again. It just means you have the present ability to. (i.e. you are there under the influence & the car is under your control (you have the keys etc))

In the circumstances you describe then the person has completed the offence.

There is a statutory defence that where there is no intention or likelyhood of you driving you will be aquitted, but the "burden of proof" with that lies with the accused (i.e. the prosecution don't have to prove you were going to drive you have to prove you weren't).

In practice though the CPS will only accept a Police charge & go to court, where the Police can go beyond what is required in the legislation & provide evidence to negate that statutory defence. In other words to show that it was very likely that the accused would have driven. This usually means something like keys in the ignition OR in the driving seat etc.

by **brianhaddon** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 5:28 pm

Thanks for the replies so far.
It was on the street in a cul-de-sac.
He had been trying to turn the car over all day apparently, and just thought in his drunken state that he would try again.

To Vonhosen - What would (generally) be the case if the car would not work, i.e. it had a flat battery, so in order to start and drive off the driver would have to do more then merely put the key in the ignition and turn it on? The arresting policeman was supposed to have tried to start it but couldn't. This is the bit I am confused with as to me the likelyhood that he would have driven it is pretty slim to say the least.
Brian Haddon

by **vonhosen** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 5:33 pm

brianhaddon wrote:Thanks for the replies so far.
It was on the street in a cul-de-sac.
He had been trying to turn the car over all day apparently, and just thought in his drunken state that he would try again.

To Vonhosen - What would (generally) be the case if the car would not work, i.e. it had a flat battery, so in order to start and drive off the driver would have to do more then merely put the key in the ignition and turn it on? The arresting policeman was supposed to have tried to start it but couldn't. This is the bit I am confused with as to me the likelyhood that he would have driven it is pretty slim to say the least.
Brian Haddon

There is the statutory defence as I said.
The burden of proof is his though. He has to convince the court that he was never going to drive. The prosecution may counter that with other evidence (depending on what they have). What if, for instance, the officer states the engine was turning over but appeared flooded, following drunken attempts to start it ?
It sounds in the circumstances like a worrying wait for him & a court hearing.

by **brianhaddon** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 5:51 pm

Once again thanks,
In case you are wondering about my interest the person involved is one of my sons. As you may have gathered I have expressed my thoughts to him on this situation. But also feel that the outcome may be harsher than the overall circumstances deserve. As you say vonhosen a worrying wait for us all. I will let you know the outcome.
Brian Haddon

by **vonhosen** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 5:59 pm

In charge is preventative legislation. (Better stop them before they drive & fail to stop resulting in tragedy)
My advice to anyone reading is, don't have the keys & the car anywhere near one another when you have been drinking.

'drinking and driving'

Who is online