Drunk in charge of camper van

Peregrinus

Nitpick: not a future intent to drive; a present intent to drive at a future time.

But not at any future time. The mere possesion or, indeed, ownership of a car suggests an intent to drive at some point. But good luck getting someone convicted on the basis that (a) he's drunk and (b) he owns a car. The intention to drive at some future time must be an intention to drive at a time close enough that the defendant's present state of intoxication is a relevant consideration.

Nobody's found a case in which the evidence suggested an intent to drive a future time when sober, and a conviction ensued. And that, I think, points to the boundary of legally safe behaviour.

Claw Hammer

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nitpick: not a future intent to drive; a present intent to drive at a future time.

But not at any future time. The mere possesion or, indeed, ownership of a car suggests an intent to drive at some point. But good luck getting someone convicted on the basis that (a) he's drunk and (b) he owns a car. The intention to drive at some future time must be an intention to drive at a time close enough that the defendant's present state of intoxication is a relevant consideration.

Nobody's found a case in which the evidence suggested an intent to drive a future time when sober, and a conviction ensued. And that, I think, points to the boundary of legally safe behaviour.

That is the problem, nobody has argued that an intent to drive when sober is sufficient. The Byrne case specifically states that an intention to drive at some point in the future is sufficient. You state as a matter of opinion is that if evidence is offered of an intention to drive when sober an acquittal would result. That means someone has to take their chances and given that Byrne is a Supreme Court decision, it would be highly a District Court judge would defy it. Byrne is open ended as far as the future intent to drive is concerned.
It would be cheaper to stay in a 5* hotel that take ones chances on an argument in the District Court. A thick garda followed by a thick judge and a conviction would ensue.

Peregrinus

And yet, despite this offence or a similar one having been on the statute books for many decades, this has never happened. Gosh! I wonder why?

Byrne doesn't say that a present intent to drive in the future ever, at any time, is sufficient to constitute the offence; it just says that no particular timeframe is specified. The court is quite clear about this; "It would not be a defence for a defendant to admit that he was in charge of a motor vehicle . . . but did not intent to drive for 3½ hours, 6 hours or as the case may be". And this makes perfect sense since, from a public policy point of view, the important question is not in what time frame exactly will you drive, but whether you will be sober when you drive, a question only tangentially related to the matter of timeframe.

In Byrne's case matters were pretty clear-cut. The defendant was sitting in the driver's seat, with the keys in the ignition and the lights turned out, stopped at a place at which he had no reason to remain. The onus was on him to adduce evidence rebutting the presumption of an intent to drive. His argument on this point didn't focus at all on how long it would be before he drove but rather that, being asleep, he couldn't be said to have had any intention to do anything — an argument that failed, because the court found that his actions before falling asleep (getting into the car, putting the key in the ignition, turning on the lights) evidenced an intention to drive which wasn't lost on falling asleep. There was no argument that the evidence pointed to an intention to drive when sobered up because, frankly, there was no evidence pointing to such an intention. So Byrne is not an authority for the proposition that an intention to drive when sober is sufficient to constitute the offence; the point was never argued.

Claw Hammer

Peregrinus wrote: »

And yet, despite this offence or a similar one having been on the statute books for many decades, this has never happened. Gosh! I wonder why?

Byrne doesn't say that a present intent to drive in the future ever, at any time, is sufficient to constitute the offence; it just says that no particular timeframe is specified. The court is quite clear about this; "It would not be a defence for a defendant to admit that he was in charge of a motor vehicle . . . but did not intent to drive for 3½ hours, 6 hours or as the case may be". And this makes perfect sense since, from a public policy point of view, the important question is not in what time frame exactly will you drive, but whether you will be sober when you drive, a question only tangentially related to the matter of timeframe.

In Byrne's case matters were pretty clear-cut. The defendant was sitting in the driver's seat, with the keys in the ignition and the lights turned out, stopped at a place at which he had no reason to remain. The onus was on him to adduce evidence rebutting the presumption of an intent to drive. His argument on this point didn't focus at all on how long it would be before he drove but rather that, being asleep, he couldn't be said to have had any intention to do anything — an argument that failed, because the court found that his actions before falling asleep (getting into the car, putting the key in the ignition, turning on the lights) evidenced an intention to drive which wasn't lost on falling asleep. There was no argument that the evidence pointed to an intention to drive when sobered up because, frankly, there was no evidence pointing to such an intention. So Byrne is not an authority for the proposition that an intention to drive when sober is sufficient to constitute the offence; the point was never argued.

the point was never argued so the situation remains open. If defending someone charged all of that would be argued. What the o/p is seeking is prescriptive as in what can I do to ensure I am not charged or convicted. Byrne does not close off the intention to drive when sober. A person who parks up or enters a vehicle while over the limit, has control; of the keys clearly intends to drive at some point in the future. The may intend to drive only when sober but the offence is made out if the intend to drive at all. Byrne does not definitively close that off.
A person who pitches a tent in a public place and sleeps in in beside a vehicle which is also in a public place and of hich the person has control of the keys may be guilty of the offence.
Likewise a person who is parked on the public road outside their house could be charged if they left the house to retrieve something from the vehicle.
The fact that there hasn't been a reported case is not unusual. DUI and DIC are dealt with in the District Court. Most guards use their discretion. only a tiny fraction of cases reach the High Court or the appeal courts.

athlone573

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Likewise a person who is parked on the public road outside their house could be charged if they left the house to retrieve something from the vehicle.
.

Doesn't the top judge cover that situation in their judgement, as not an offence?

Peregrinus

Claw Hammer wrote: »

. . . The fact that there hasn't been a reported case is not unusual. DUI and DIC are dealt with in the District Court. Most guards use their discretion. only a tiny fraction of cases reach the High Court or the appeal courts.

Yeah, but the likely reason why we know of no reported cases is not that such convictions occur but are not appealed; it's that such convictions don't occur because prosecutions are not mounted in these circumstances.

I can hear you saying that the costs of appealing are such that there may be many convictions of this kind and we'd never hear about them because no one would want to bear the costs of the appeal. But one of the things that struck me when I was formally studying the law of evidence, back in the late middle ages, was the astonishing proportion of superior court precedents that had been established in drink driving cases of one kind or another. It may be expensive to appeal a drink-driving conviction on a technical point (and evidence points are always technical) but there seemed to be no shortage of drink drivers willing to bear the expense. I don't know whether this is due to the very considerable economic impact, for many people, of a driving disqualification or to a psychological unwillingness on the part of many drivers ever to admit, even to themselves, that they might possibly have done something wrong, or a combination of the two, but there it is. If there is ever a District Court conviction that's going to be appealed on the question of whether there was sufficient evidence to prove X or Y or Z point, odds are it'll be a drink-driving conviction. And therefore, while nothing is proven, the theory that these convictions occur but are never appealed does not seem to me to be a very likely one.

Claw Hammer

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yeah, but the likely reason why we know of no reported cases is not that such convictions occur but are not appealed; it's that such convictions don't occur because prosecutions are not mounted in these circumstances.

I can hear you saying that the costs of appealing are such that there may be many convictions of this kind and we'd never hear about them because no one would want to bear the costs of the appeal. But one of the things that struck me when I was formally studying the law of evidence, back in the late middle age, was the astonishing proportion of superior court precedents that had been established in drink driving cases of one kind or another. It may be expensive to appeal a drink-driving conviction on a technical point (and evidence points are always technical) but there seemed to be no shortage of drink drivers willing to bear the expense. I don't know whether this is due to the very considerable economic impact, for many people, of a driving disqualification or to a psychological unwillingness on the part of many drivers ever to admit, even to themselves, that they might possibly have done something wrong, or a combination of the two, but there it is. If there is ever a District Court conviction that's going to be appealed on the question of whether there was sufficient evidence to prove X or Y or Z point, odds are it'll be a drink-driving conviction. And therefore, while nothing is proven, the theory that these convictions occur but are never appealed does not seem to me to be a very likely one.

Drink driving is heavily litigated but even so the number of cases going to the Superior Courts is a tiny fraction of the overall number. Many defendants plead guilty on day 1. There are about 1000 drink driving arrests a month. Only a handful result in a hearing before the Superior courts.

Peregrinus

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Drink driving is heavily litigated but even so the number of cases going to the Superior Courts is a tiny fraction of the overall number. Many defendants plead guilty on day 1. There are about 1000 drink driving arrests a month. Only a handful result in a hearing before the Superior courts.

I know. But that's because they are mostly very cut-and-dried. That was the whole point of the breathalyzer system - to produce an offence that it would be all but impossible to appeal, given the very strong propensity of drink-driving defendants to appeal.

But if somebody was convicted on of evidence pointing to an intention to drive only when sober - yeah, high chance of an appeal there, given the fact that the propriety of such a conviction has never been tested. There are incentives there - good arguable case on the one hand, high economic costs if the conviction is allowed to stand on the other - that seem almost precisely designed to encourage the drink-driver's instinct to appeal.

Claw Hammer

Peregrinus wrote: »

I know. But that's because they are mostly very cut-and-dried. That was the whole point of the breathalyzer system - to produce an offence that it would be all but impossible to appeal, given the very strong propensity of drink-driving defendants to appeal.

But if somebody was convicted on of evidence pointing to an intention to drive only when sober - yeah, high chance of an appeal there, given the fact that the propriety of such a conviction has never been tested. There are incentives there - good arguable case on the one hand, high economic costs if the conviction is allowed to stand on the other - that seem almost precisely designed to encourage the drink-driver's instinct to appeal.

If the drink driver can afford it. In most cases guards will not charge in a bona fide situation. If someone is asleep in the back of a van or car, the guard has no real basis for waking them up in order to smell their breath. Likewise most judges would be inclined to some sympathy for the individual.
The fact that there is no case doesn't mean that guards are ignoring possible cases. There is a fetish or trying to get drink driving prosecutions. One assistant commissioner now retired wanted returns every month for every district showing the statistics for drink driving checkpoints, detections, arrests, prosecutions and convictions. It led to the fake breathalyser statistics. It was made known that career opportunities would be influenced by good statistics.
The o/p wanted to know if there was a formula he could use which would guarantee no prosecution.
There isn't one which is guaranteed. Nobody wants to be the test case. It is better to park on private land or not drink.

Day Lewin

This question comes up time after time on the various camper-van groups that I'm a member of (Lots and lots!)

Short answer; may be technically illegal, theoretically you could be arrested. After all, you are apparently "in charge of" a vehicle.

Real-life answer: Police don't really bother overnight campers unless there is some other reason - if you're causing a nuisance, or you resemble a known criminal - or they have some reason for being "out to get you".

But generally speaking, it's all fine.

Spent many a night at a roadside parking space in the old van, gin-and-tonic and a glass of wine - nary a word being said by anyone.

There was one slightly hairy moment when overnighting in a layby at a picnic spot in Northern Ireland, and an RUC car slowed to a crawl seeing an Irish-reg van - but when they saw the net curtains at my windows they pottered off again!