Intoxicated in charge of a vehicle

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.

STB.

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

But the presumption mainly applies to people who are caught red handed as it were.

No. Presumption of Innocence is constitutionally protected, i.e. that every person accused of a criminal offence in Ireland is innocent until proven guilty.

"Intent" should not be left up to be proven by balance of probability.

People do it unwittingly in cars and campers in public car park/spaces and at festivals and do not know the potential repercussions.

Drifter50

joeguevara wrote: »

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.

Maybe you`re not familiar with what happens around rural Ireland with these motorhomes. Now I know I`m generalising here but
-average age of motorhome occupants 60 plus
-retired persons
-leave their home base April/May and travel around rural Ireland for the summer months
-meet their friends in the various stops
-lots of Aldi and Lidl wine consumed
-could have wife in living area watching the soaps, husband sitting in driving seat looking at his phone / reading books paper etc
-move on every couple of days

sounds like a way of life to me

joeguevara

Drifter50 wrote: »

Maybe you`re not familiar with what happens around rural Ireland with these motorhomes. Now I know I`m generalising here but
-average age of motorhome occupants 60 plus
-retired persons
-leave their home base April/May and travel around rural Ireland for the summer months
-meet their friends in the various stops
-lots of Aldi and Lidl wine consumed
-could have wife in living area watching the soaps, husband sitting in driving seat looking at his phone / reading books paper etc
-move on every couple of days

sounds like a way of life to me

Sit in passenger seat. Problem solved.

Credit Checker Moose

joeguevara wrote: »

Sit in passenger seat. Problem solved.

Nope.

joeguevara

Credit Checker Moose wrote: »

Nope.

Ok maybe I was a bit flippant. It is possible you may be charged with the offence if sat in passenger seat. If you weren’t in possession of keys which shows that you were unlikely to have an intention to drive while unfit. If another person had the keys and were packed away, then that would definitely reach the balance of probabilities.

GM228

cobhguy28 wrote: »

"15. I conclude, therefore, that if the Court is satisfied that the Defendant was in charge of the motor vehicle as charged, the presumption of intention to drive pursuant to subsection 8 of section 50 arises. It is then for the Defendant to show to the contrary so as to raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the trial judge."

That is a much lower threshold than on the, balance of probabilities

Well, hum, there is a problem here in that the case stated did not specifically deal with a reverse burden provision per se, the Supreme Court specifically dealt with this issue in 1992 in the Hardy vs Ireland [1992] 2 IR 550 case where it held:-

Hardy wrote:

The words are ‘unless he can show . . . [etc.]’. These words cannot be construed as meaning that the raising of a doubt would be a sufficient discharge. The onus, not being an onus resting on the prosecution, does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is sufficient if there is proof on the balance of probabilities

And note the presumption in the Act:-

(8) In a prosecution for an offence under this section it shall be presumed that the defendant intended to drive or attempt to drive the vehicle concerned until he or she shows the contrary.

Reverse burden provisions can be a very complicated area of the law and the various tests involved, however the Hardy principle has been reaffirmed by both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court in recent times.

Mckenna Scrawny Female wrote: »

It was said above that swapping keys with another sleeper in another car would make you safe from prosecution. But could you not get your keys back as you could reconnect the battery. Or is not having the keys mean you are not in charge?

Not having the keys does not mean you are not in charge of the vehicle.

Peregrinus wrote: »

This. If you don't have the keys, you can't drive the car, or enable anyone else to. So you're not "in charge" of the car

To nitpick Peregrinus:-

Byrne wrote:

Of course I do not mean to say that all these ingredients are essential since in particular circumstances a person may be “ in charge ” even if he does not have the keys or if he is outside the motor

You most definitely can be in charge of a vehicle without the keys as per the Supreme Court, but the charge is a two part one, it's the intent which is in doubt with no keys, not the in charge part.

STB. wrote: »

"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.

It's not an offence to be in charge of a vehicle even when not driving or attempting to drive it, it's an offence to be in charge of a vehicle with intent to drive.

Mckenna Scrawny Female wrote: »

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

You don't prove innocence, you rebut a presumption.

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

But the presumption 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.

The presumption of innocence applies to ANY criminal charge, irrespective of weather you were caught red handed or not.

STB. wrote: »

No. Presumption of Innocence is constitutionally protected, i.e. that every person accused of a criminal offence in Ireland is innocent until proven guilty.

I'll nitpick again, but strictly the presumption of innocence does not actually create any presumption of innocence, the vital point is that it simply states the accused must not prove their innocence, rather the prosecution must prove their guilt in accordance with law, that is not the same as saying the accused is innocent, though it does have that general effect.

monty_python

How does this law apply to campervans? It's a common occurrence for people to park up the campervan and walk to the pub and then sleep in the campervan.

Could they technically be done too??

amadangomor

monty_python wrote: »

How does this law apply to campervans? It's a common occurrence for people to park up the campervan and walk to the pub and then sleep in the campervan.

Could they technically be done too??

It has been discussed already, read the thread:)

GM228

monty_python wrote: »

How does this law apply to campervans? It's a common occurrence for people to park up the campervan and walk to the pub and then sleep in the campervan.

Could they technically be done too??

Yes they could depending on the situation, contrary to what some may believe a camper van does not have any special status or definition in road traffic law, they are mechanically propelled vehicles (MPV) just like a car, truck, van, motorbike etc - the offence applies to MPVs with no exceptions.

monty_python

amadangomor wrote: »

It has been discussed already, read the thread:)

My apologies. I just seen that now

joeguevara

Has there ever been a case in Ireland of a truck driver prosecuted as he/she slept in their bunk which is usually behind the driver and passenger seats I haven’t heard of any. That would mean that a person who slept in the sleeping area while intoxicated would be treated the same, if in the drivers seat and possibly the passenger seat they risk being prosecuted. I never imagined so many people would be worried about campervans until I read this thread. Honestly, I have never heard it brought up before.

ExoPolitic

Curious - What if the sober driver left the car with two drunk passengers fast asleep in the back as not to wake them?

GM228

ExoPolitic wrote: »

Curious - What if the sober driver left the car with two drunk passengers fast asleep in the back as not to wake them?

Should be fairly easy to rebut the presumption when the driver gives evidence of such (and of course he/she didn't leave the keys with them).

spaceHopper

Where do camper vans fit into this every time I go surfing I sleep in a camper after a few drinks

joeguevara

spaceHopper wrote: »

Where do camper vans fit into this every time I go surfing I sleep in a camper after a few drinks

That’s the least of your worries. What about having a few drinks and sleeping in your campervan after your friends got wine from Lidl.

spaceHopper

joeguevara wrote: »

That’s the least of your worries. What about having a few drinks and sleeping in your campervan after your friends got wine from Lidl.

It's a small vsn

joeguevara

spaceHopper wrote: »

It's a small vsn

Is it a campervan or a motorhome?

Steve

So

(8) In a prosecution for an offence under this section it shall be presumed that the defendant intended to drive or attempt to drive the vehicle concerned until he or she shows the contrary.

How is this not contrary to the presumption of innocence granted by our constitution?

As was said, 'Intent', in a criminal proceeding, cannot be determined on 'balance of probabilities'. it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

STB.

Steve wrote: »

So

How is this not contrary to the presumption of innocence granted by our constitution?

As was said, 'Intent', in a criminal proceeding, cannot be determined on 'balance of probabilities'. it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

It is. How did this even get past the AG's.

And how has it not been judicially reviewed? We are getting into nonsense territory when we are talking about being "in charge" and second guessing peoples "intent".

On my reading of the updated legislation, there is no difference between sleeping in car whilst intoxicated and driving whilst intoxicated (certainly the repercussions are the same). How many of these cases are being brought to court on the basis of badly written legislation.

And there are people sleeping in cars and RV's etc, that probably don't know this.

GM228 wrote: »

To note it's not an offence to be in charge of a vehicle even when not driving or attempting to drive it simplicitor, it's an offence to be in charge of a vehicle with intent to drive.

Hold on a second. Your nitpicking doesnt get away from the fact that it is a charge that you have to answer on the basis of a member of AGS having to implement poorly written legislation. The burden of proof is finding someone sleeping in car. Unless they have been teaching some form of mind reading down in Templemore, intent cannot be measured by tapping at someones window.

GM228 wrote: »

I'll nitpick again, but strictly the presumption of innocence does not actually create any presumption of innocence, the vital point is that it simply states the accused must not prove their innocence, rather the prosecution must prove their guilt in accordance with law, that is not the same as saying the accused is innocent, though it does have that general effect.

I'll nitpick back. Presumption of innocence is taking a back seat in the context of a Garda's view of when people are "in charge" of a vehicle and when they are not. Secondly, second guessing people's "intent" is not proof of anything and shouldn't proceed unless there is damning evidence . There are criminal cases everyday that are shot down by the DPP because of lack of evidence.

These "caught in car sleeping whilst intoxicated" cases can and are preceding to the courts on the whim of a member of AGS for the courts to decide on "the balance of probabilities". The penalties are the same as if someone was caught drink driving.

joeguevara

I was reading an English case and to rebut the presumption of intent to drive he showed the arresting policeman his contact lenses that he had taken out. The judge accepted that as his vision would be so impaired that it was clear that he had no intention to drive. It wasn’t stated but it was key that he showed the policeman his contact lenses in their case which was in the report rather than saying it in court. I think other actions such as removing shoes and socks would be equally as compelling. Why would you remove them if you had an intention to drive. Unless you were Alan Partridge having a breakdown binging on Toblerones driving barefoot. Similarly if you were in a sleeping bag it would be hard to argue that you had no other intention but to sleep. If you wanted to go nuclear letting them air out of all the tyres would be a legendary defence. If you had a wheel clamp or a steering wheel brace then putting them on would surely have you in the clear.

Die Hard 2019

joeguevara wrote: »

I was reading an English case and to rebut the presumption of intent to drive he showed the arresting policeman his contact lenses that he had taken out. The judge accepted that as his vision would be so impaired that it was clear that he had no intention to drive. It wasn’t stated but it was key that he showed the policeman his contact lenses in their case which was in the report rather than saying it in court. I think other actions such as removing shoes and socks would be equally as compelling. Why would you remove them if you had an intention to drive. Unless you were Alan Partridge having a breakdown binging on Toblerones driving barefoot. Similarly if you were in a sleeping bag it would be hard to argue that you had no other intention but to sleep. If you wanted to go nuclear letting them air out of all the tyres would be a legendary defence. If you had a wheel clamp or a steering wheel brace then putting them on would surely have you in the clear.

Pull the main fuse or disconnect the starter.
In fairness you should not be done for considering driving anymore than I should be done for considering headbutting my warehouse manager. Unless I do it or attempt to do it k should be free to consider wherever I wish.

Steve

joeguevara wrote: »

I was reading an English case and to rebut the presumption of intent to drive he showed the arresting policeman his contact lenses that he had taken out. The judge accepted that as his vision would be so impaired that it was clear that he had no intention to drive. It wasn’t stated but it was key that he showed the policeman his contact lenses in their case which was in the report rather than saying it in court. I think other actions such as removing shoes and socks would be equally as compelling. Why would you remove them if you had an intention to drive. Unless you were Alan Partridge having a breakdown binging on Toblerones driving barefoot. Similarly if you were in a sleeping bag it would be hard to argue that you had no other intention but to sleep. If you wanted to go nuclear letting them air out of all the tyres would be a legendary defence. If you had a wheel clamp or a steering wheel brace then putting them on would surely have you in the clear.

So, are you saying someone has a legal burden to prove themself innocent?

joeguevara

Steve wrote: »

So, are you saying someone has a legal burden to prove themself innocent?

If they are intoxicated they have to rebut the presumption that they were not in charge of the vehicle and did not have an intention to drive.

The reversal of the burden of proof while rare exists in some cases. For example if found in the possession of a dangerous weapon, the accused has to prove that they were not going to use it to cause harm.

This is why, I casually joked with clients that if they have a baseball bat in their boot, always have a baseball glove and baseball to show that they played rounders rather than to bash Antos head in for being behind on his bill.

Same if someone was found with a Stanley blade, if they were a carpet fitter and were on their way from home then they would rebut the presumption that they could use it to slice someone. Similarly butcher or chefs with knives.

The presumption of innocent while the cornerstone in our criminal legal system, reverses in certain cases.

Die Hard 2019

joeguevara wrote: »

If they are intoxicated they have to rebut the presumption that they were not in charge of the vehicle and did not have an intention to drive.

The reversal of the burden of proof while rare exists in some cases. For example if found in the possession of a dangerous weapon, the accused has to prove that they were not going to use it to cause harm.

This is why, I casually joked with clients that if they have a baseball bat in their boot, always have a baseball glove and baseball to show that they played rounders rather than to bash Antos head in for being behind on his bill.

Same if someone was found with a Stanley blade, if they were a carpet fitter and were on their way from home then they would rebut the presumption that they could use it to slice someone. Similarly butcher or chefs with knives.

The presumption of innocent while the cornerstone in our criminal legal system, reverses in certain cases.

In 90s Dublin we started a softball pickup game because everyone in the grouop had bats and gloves

Steve

I'm not arguing the fact that that it is currently a burden upon innocent people to rebut their guilt, I'm just saying it is abhorrent to the constitution.

"the accused has to prove that they were not going to use it to cause harm" no, bull****, the accuser had to prove they meant to cause harm.

In the greater scheme of things, it matters not a jot though because unless they have been proven guilty a hundred times previously, then there is no punishment.

Steve

Steve wrote: »

In the greater scheme of things, it matters not a jot though because unless they have been proven guilty a hundred times previously, then there is no punishment.

Except, of course, if caught with no car tax, or sleeping off a few beers in the boot of your car...

joeguevara

Steve wrote: »

I'm not arguing the fact that that it is currently a burden upon innocent people to rebut their guilt, I'm just saying it is abhorrent to the constitution.

"the accused has to prove that they were not going to use it to cause harm" no, bull****, the accuser had to prove they meant to cause harm.

In the greater scheme of things, it matters not a jot though because unless they have been proven guilty a hundred times previously, then there is no punishment.

If that was the case it would permit anybody walk round with dangerous weapons without any fear.

oleras

GM228 wrote: »

Control is based on possession, not the actual ability to drive and the presumption is simply based on the fact you intend to drive at some stage in the future, the fact you have to reconnect the battery is irrelevant.





The offence is based on presumed intentions, not the means of achieving such intentions, the only way such a defence of a defective vehicle would work would be when you establish the vehicle was defective, you knew it was defective yourself and it wasn't an easy fix - i.e you needed a mechanic etc. There's nothing stopping you from reconnecting the batteries and then driving off.

Would a text message to wife/brother/friend explaining to them that you intend sleeping in your car because you cant afford a taxi and will require a lift home when they get up in the morning, say 7am ? Would that do as a rebuttal if you showed the Guard at the time, say timestamped 1am and he approaches you at 2am.

joeguevara

oleras wrote: »

Would a text message to wife/brother/friend explaining to them that you intend sleeping in your car because you cant afford a taxi and will require a lift home when they get up in the morning, say 7am ? Would that do as a rebuttal if you showed the Guard at the time, say timestamped 1am and he approaches you at 2am.

If you were sat in drivers seat with the keys on your person, then no it wouldn’t be a rebuttal. If you were sat in the back with the keys outside or appropriately hidden, then you wouldn’t need a text message to rebut your presumption.

Saying that you are going to do something does not mean that you are going to do it. Especially if all other indicators point to not doing it. It would be very similar to texting your girlfriend at 8pm saying your going to finish up your pint (But secretly ordering 10 shots of samba as) and head home to her with a pizza but instead end up head first in a wheelie bin, trying to find the kebab that you dropped in it after stumbling out of a strip club at 7am. Do you think that you can rely on a time stamped text message at 08.00 as a rebuttal that you didn’t intend to do all of the other things?

STB.

oleras wrote: »

Would a text message to wife/brother/friend explaining to them that you intend sleeping in your car because you cant afford a taxi and will require a lift home when they get up in the morning, say 7am ? Would that do as a rebuttal if you showed the Guard at the time, say timestamped 1am and he approaches you at 2am.

If presumption of innocence on intent was truly applied, simply telling a Guard that clearly you are not driving and have no intention of driving should the first meaure of one's intentions. To double down offering the keys to the Guard should suffice as regards future intentions.


The fact that "intent" is seen from a worse case scenario to be referred to and measured by a court regardless of ones intentions in the biggest issue. We don't want people taking a chance, if they realise that they may get pulled for doing the sensible thing in not driving.