Intoxicated in charge of a vehicle

Andrewf20

Such a ridiculous law. You get done without actually driving. I only found out about this law about 3 years ago.

Always Tired

CrankyHaus wrote: »

It's not a functioning mechanically propelled vehicle until it is repaired. I'd take my chances.

Before you do, go and sit in a district court for a day, see how many people plead not guilty and are found as such.

Take special note of anyone whose case involves alcohol, see how many of those with drink taken are given the benefit of the doubt. They never are. Alcohol is often used as an excuse for doing things, mitigating factor etc, but that's only of use for those pleading guilty.

Anyone who thinks that you need to be proven guilty and all this law and order crap needs to cop on before they try and get away with something on a technicality. While the law does say you are supposed innocent until proven guilty, in practice it really becomes the opposite when you are charged and in court. the guards testimony is considered practically sacred and they will lay it on especially thick when they describe how drunk you were: bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, etc.

The one case mentioned earlier where a cop came up and knocked on a guys window when he was in his driveway though, I don't believe that one. In the middle of the day, they are going into people's driveways? Someone who was drinking during the day had a set of keys to his car but not his house and that's why he was in his car? Sounds pretty cockamamie to me.

Peregrinus

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Such a ridiculous law. You get done without actually driving. I only found out about this law about 3 years ago.

It's actually one of the oldest drink-driving laws we have. In 1872 it was made an offence to be drunk in charge of any carriage, horse, cattle, steam engine or loaded firearm(!) in a public place. This was later extended explicitly to mechanically propelled vehicles, but I think even before that it was enforced against motorists on the basis that motor cars were a kind of carriage.

The thinking was that being in charge of these things was a responsiblity that you couldn't safely discharge while drunk. Therefore, you could be in charge, or you could be drunk, but not both. Your call.

Micky 32

After reading this thread i have to wonder about this. I’m at home relaxing watching tv and say i drank 3 glasses of wine. I obviously would be over the limit.

My car is on my driveway and my keys are next to me by my bed. So technically i’m in charge of my vehicle. So does that mean a so called garda can knock on my door and demand a breathtest and do me for being in charge??

Peregrinus

Micky 32 wrote: »

After reading this thread i have to wonder about this. I’m at home relaxing watching tv and say i drank 3 glasses of wine. I obviously would be over the limit.

My car is on my driveway and my keys are next to me by my bed. So technically i’m in charge of my vehicle. So does that mean a so called garda can knock on my door and demand a breathtest and do me for being in charge??

No. You're not in a public place, and neither is the car. Also the fact that you are watching television and that the keys are nowhere near you but are in the place they are kept when the car is not being used would probably be sufficent to rebut the presumption that you intend to drive or attempt to drive.

Micky 32

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. You're not in a public place.

Once the person ( not the car) isn’t in a public place? What if my car was parked on the street from my driveway?

Peregrinus

Micky 32 wrote: »

Once the person ( not the car) isn’t in a public place? What if my car was parked on the street from my driveway?

Both the car and the person have to be in a public place. If your car is parked in the street (a public place) and you are inside your own front door with the keys in your hand (and so in charge of the car) you're in the clear. The guard needs to wait for you to step out into the street before he pounces.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

So hypothetically...

I drive my camper to Kerry every summer, the odd night I park in a supermarket car park, go for a few pints and go back to my van to sleep.

This is drink driving?

endacl

Micky 32 wrote: »

a so called garda

A whatnow?

Micky 32

Hunky Monster wrote: »

So hypothetically...

I drive my camper to Kerry every summer, the odd night I park in a supermarket car park, go for a few pints and go back to my van to sleep.

This is drink driving?

If a garda is decent and has any intelligence and knows the craic he/she should know your intentions, lots of people do what you do. However the force and it’s members have become so miserable and just out to do anything that moves i wouldn’t risk it.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

Micky 32 wrote: »

If a garda is decent and has any intelligence and knows the craic he/she should know your intentions, lots of people do what you do. However the force and it’s members have become so miserable and just out to do anything that moves i wouldn’t risk it.

It might come down to meeting an actual Garda or Satan spawn traffic corps.

Peregrinus

Hunky Monster wrote: »

So hypothetically...

I drive my camper to Kerry every summer, the odd night I park in a supermarket car park, go for a few pints and go back to my van to sleep.

This is drink driving?

This is being drunk in charge.

A prosecution is unlikely, and a successful prosecution even less likely; the fact that you're tucked up in a bunk in the camper van, and that you're on holiday and have no particular reason to want to go home, is probably going to be sufficient to rebut the presumption of intention to drive. Your situation is not the same as that of someone sleeping it off in a car, who (most people will reckon) probably brought the car with him so that he could go home.

RobAMerc

more proof we've gone over the top with laws in ireland - "if DUI law saves one life, having 50 DUI laws will save 50 lives !" nonsense

amadangomor

What if I am going to get something specific from the car? So I'm at home and have had a few glasses of wine and realise I've left the pizza I bought earlier in car. I walk to my drive open the car with the keys, open door to the back seat, reach in and grab the pizza, lock the door and go back inside.

So this is an offence? If a guard arrived as I was reaching in to grab the pizza I could be prosecuted even though I had no intent to drive?

joeguevara

amadangomor wrote: »

What if I am going to get something specific from the car? So I'm at home and have had a few glasses of wine and realise I've left the pizza I bought earlier in car. I walk to my drive open the car with the keys, open door to the back seat, reach in and grab the pizza, lock the door and go back inside.

So this is an offence? If a guard arrived as I was reaching in to grab the pizza I could be prosecuted even though I had no intent to drive?

You could be prosecuted and the you would have to prove No intent to drive. I’d doubt it would get very far if you hadn’t put keys in ignition and looked like you were going to drive.

Peregrinus

amadangomor wrote: »

What if I am going to get something specific from the car? So I'm at home and have had a few glasses of wine and realise I've left the pizza I bought earlier in car. I walk to my drive open the car with the keys, open door to the back seat, reach in and grab the pizza, lock the door and go back inside.

So this is an offence? If a guard arrived as I was reaching in to grab the pizza I could be prosecuted even though I had no intent to drive?

I think the fact that you had opened the back door and leaned in to grab the pizza would rebut the presumption of intent to drive.

BohsCeltic

I was in court last year and there was a man up for DD.
A bit similar to the OP's friend. This man was at a party and had an argument with his GF so went to his car to cool down. Put the keys in the ignition to turn the radio on.
A passing Garda noticed a large knife on the dash so asked him to exit the vehicle. Obviously smelt the alcohol so he was arrested and then charged for being in control of the vehicle.

His barrister argued that he didn't intend to drive and was just using the car as somewhere to go and cool down. With regards to the knife the defense was that he always carried the knife as he used it for cutting meat on his lunch break, apparently this is common in whatever country he was from.
His barrister read out a character witness statement from his boss stating that he needed to drive as part of his job so this would have a negative impact and also that he could vouch that the knife was in fact used for cutting meat as he had seen him doing this many times.

At this stage i was thinking a ban and fine for the knife but we got away with it scot free. No charges at all.

Strange how the law can work sometimes.

Peregrinus

RobAMerc wrote: »

more proof we've gone over the top with laws in ireland - "if DUI law saves one life, having 50 DUI laws will save 50 lives !" nonsense

That's not what is going on at all.

I think there are a couple of considerations behind the drunk-in-charge laws.

The first is the practical one that it's best to head off harm caused by drink than it is to punish the drinker after it has happened. A drunk-in-charge law is the one that enables the guards to intervene before you get into the car/get on the horse/discharge the gun.

The second is that it helps to get around a procedural problem. Alerted by the commotion, a guard comes running around the corner and finds drunken you at the wheel of your recently-damaged car and, just behind you, the corpse of a little old lady/sweet little orphan/saintly nun whose injuries suggest that she has just been run over. The guard cannot testify that you ran over her, or that you drove while drunk, because he did not see either of these things. But the guard can testify that you are drunk in charge, because he has witnessed that. So, part of the reason for this offence existing is that it makes possible prosecutions that rely on police evidence alone, which makes law enforcement easier and cheaper, both of which tend to make it more effective.

Drifter50

Gawd this seems bizarre.

Most weekends of the year you can trawl areas around the River Shannon or coastal car parks and find hundreds if not thousands of motorhomes with the occupants generally spending their time getting properly pickled

These motorhomes usually move on the next morning to the next part of their holiday or destination.

Not saying whats right or wrong but there are implications here for a way of life surely

Peregrinus

Drifter50 wrote: »

Gawd this seems bizarre.

Most weekends of the year you can trawl areas around the River Shannon or coastal car parks and find hundreds if not thousands of motorhomes with the occupants generally spending their time getting properly pickled

These motorhomes usually move on the next morning to the next part of their holiday or destination.

Not saying whats right or wrong but there are implications here for a way of life surely

Well, not really, since the practice is widespread (as you point out) and the law has been in place for 150 years, but few if any prosecutions are brought in these circumstances. So I'm not persuaded that there is much in the way of real-world implications for caravan/motorhome touring.

joeguevara

Drifter50 wrote: »

Gawd this seems bizarre.

Most weekends of the year you can trawl areas around the River Shannon or coastal car parks and find hundreds if not thousands of motorhomes with the occupants generally spending their time getting properly pickled

These motorhomes usually move on the next morning to the next part of their holiday or destination.

Not saying whats right or wrong but there are implications here for a way of life surely

Holidaying in a campervan is not a way of life.

Secondly the scenario described is not really what is discussed as the person isn’t drinking in the drivers seat with intent to drive.

If they are over the limit when the do begin their journey then they are susceptible to a drink driving charge.

If they are parked up and drinking in the sleeping are or kitchenette then intention to drive wouldn’t be there.

marieholmfan

BohsCeltic wrote: »

I was in court last year and there was a man up for DD.
A bit similar to the OP's friend. This man was at a party and had an argument with his GF so went to his car to cool down. Put the keys in the ignition to turn the radio on.
A passing Garda noticed a large knife on the dash so asked him to exit the vehicle. Obviously smelt the alcohol so he was arrested and then charged for being in control of the vehicle.

His barrister argued that he didn't intend to drive and was just using the car as somewhere to go and cool down. With regards to the knife the defense was that he always carried the knife as he used it for cutting meat on his lunch break, apparently this is common in whatever country he was from.
His barrister read out a character witness statement from his boss stating that he needed to drive as part of his job so this would have a negative impact and also that he could vouch that the knife was in fact used for cutting meat as he had seen him doing this many times.

At this stage i was thinking a ban and fine for the knife but we got away with it scot free. No charges at all.

Strange how the law can work sometimes.

The Garda was 100% right and the judge might have been as well.

FishOnABike

the_pen_turner wrote: »

what would happen if you made a video of yourself in the car stating that you have no intention of driving until enough time has passed for you the be sober

I'd say you would have just provided the evidence to convict yourself. The offense is being drunk in charge with the intent to drive not being drunk in charge with the intent to drive while still drunk.

STB.

Hunky Monster wrote: »

So hypothetically...

I drive my camper to Kerry every summer, the odd night I park in a supermarket car park, go for a few pints and go back to my van to sleep.

This is drink driving?

Yes.

You can thank Ireland's legislators. The reality is that our learned politicians have delivered these laws. The legislation was actually doubled down on in the 2010/2014 Road Traffic Acts that amend Sections 49 and Section 50 from the 1961 Act.

"Intent" and "in charge" are the key words here. It is an offence to be in charge of a vehicle EVEN when not driving or attempting to drive it.

You would think that it is the prosecution's very difficult job to prove intent, but no, you can be convicted on the balance of probabilities, unless you disprove intent. Presumption of innocence takes a back seat.

I don't advocate drink driving, but if this law's intent was to stop drink driving, then it might have had the opposite effect.

80j2lc5y7u6qs9

STB. wrote: »

Yes.

You can thank Ireland's legislators. The reality is that our learned politicians have delivered these laws. The legislation was actually doubled down on in the 2010/2014 Road Traffic Acts that amend Sections 49 and Section 50 from the 1961 Act.

"Intent" and "in charge" are the key words here. It is an offence to be in charge of a vehicle EVEN when not driving or attempting to drive it.

You would think that it is the prosecution's very difficult job to prove intent, but no, you can be convicted on the balance of probabilities, unless you disprove intent. Presumption of innocence takes a back seat.

I don't advocate drink driving, but if this law's intent was to stop drink driving, then it might have had the opposite effect.

Isn't it strange the accused has to prove innonence?

Claw Hammer

Mckenna Scrawny Female wrote: »

Isn't it strange the accused has to prove innonence?

No. In the context of drink driving offences the suspect has to provide a sample, thus either self incriminating or proving innocence.
It is typical of many regulatory offences.

80j2lc5y7u6qs9

Claw Hammer wrote: »

No. In the context of drink driving offences the suspect has to provide a sample, thus either self incriminating or proving innocence.
It is typical of many regulatory offences.

is that what is called strict lability?

Claw Hammer

Mckenna Scrawny Female wrote: »

is that what is called strict lability?

It is a different concept. There are certain defences which require the accused to adduce evidence.

STB.

Claw Hammer wrote: »

No. In the context of drink driving offences the suspect has to provide a sample, thus either self incriminating or proving innocence.
It is typical of many regulatory offences.

That's not we are talking about. We are talking about it being caught sleeping whilst over the limit in a stationary vehicle with no intention of driving AND being treated with an outcome, that would definitely arise when being stopped over the limit at a roadside checkpoint.

Drink driving carries a criminal conviction.

Mckenna Scrawny Female wrote: »

Isn't it strange the accused has to prove innonence?

In the cases of sleeping in a car as opposed to driving it, and that the "intent" really doesn't have to proven at all, and that it is left to the balance of probabilities. Yes, its very strange.

ghost of ireland past

But the presumption (that a driver in his car intends to drive) mainly applies to people who are caught red handed as it were. They have the opportunity to explain themselves and they can't. They only have to give a reasonable excuse which isn't contradicted or made unlikely by the evidence of witnesses, especially garda withnesses. I don't think a person would choose to sleep in the drivers seat for example.

In the Supreme Court case a few pages back the guy never gave any alternative reason as to why he was in the car. If he had done it would have been hard to believe. He was in the driving seat, with the keys in, but most crucially he was on the hard shoulder, away from wherever it was where he had been drinking.

The law reflects the fact that there is generally no reason to be in your car unless you intend to drive. If you did have a different reason then just say so.

I now completely agree with the Supreme Court decision, when previously I wasn't sure. It is correct that sleeping drivers have intentions for the purpose of this law, and it is correct to look back in time to determine what those intentions might be if the person is asleep.


There was an example given in the thread where a guy said he was in the car to cool down after an argument and that was accepted.