|
Sorry to hear this Bromptonaut. It does seem a pity that a simple minor 'offence' such as this could result in a criminal charge. Never looks good on the record, even if the circumstances are explained. I thought these days that the police were taking a softer line with Cannabis. Especially when the amounts are tiny and are for obvious personal use. Maybe a good local solicitor who knows the police could plead his case and appeal to their better nature, if they have one. Maybe some forum members in the Liverpool area could recommend a solicitor who has experience of this sort of case. Seems cut and dried and the only real hope is to show contrition, present what evidence you have in mitigation and plead for leniency. Pity to mark a young mans' character at this stage of life.
Good luck.
Cheers Concrete
|
|
One more voice in support. He was only using the car as shelter with music. I am strict regarding driving offences and risk. This was , in my view, a technical offence. On tv I,be seen earnings given for much mo R serious offenced. Common sense should have been shown.
Best Wishes to the young man and, hopefully, he will work and succeed.
|
|
I disagree. There is no evidence that he was not intending to drive the car in his state. He's in the drivers seat, the ignition is on.
The charge is appropriate, in my view. And legally, he has no defence. All he can ask for is leniency in sentencing.
A solicitor might attempy to defend the case. But I doubt many would be willing to even take it on.
|
|
I agree Rob that it is a de facto offence. There cannot be tangible evidence of something abstract like intention. I do accept what has been said as not being unlikely. But the car was not driven and no one put at risk.
I would not want to criminalise someone for an action which has not put anyone else at risk.
There is no alternative to accepting that on the facts he is guilty and that is strict justice. Perhaps I'm wrong but maybe a warning would have the desired effect of ensuring compliance. The legislation is as it is. However, I am suggesting it may be better to recognise that I'm some cases some flexibility would be beneficial.
I'm another area of motoring I appreciate having had a speed awareness course and not 3 points on my licence. The course was more beneficial for my driving.
|
|
|
I disagree. There is no evidence that he was not intending to drive the car in his state. He's in the drivers seat, the ignition is on.
The charge is, I guess, appropriate.
So far as I can ascertain the required defence is a slightly odd one as there is a statutory assumption of intent to drive.
The defendant is (assuming same rules as drunk in charge) required to prove that it was more likely than not that he had no intention of driving whilst the level of drug in blood or urine remained above the prescribed limit in which case, he is not considered to be in charge.
If he's a convicing witness, possiby backed up by his g/f, as to his practice of leaving car from 01:00 to well after midday next day using it as a weather shelter and evidence from his black box corroborates might he 'get off'?
Not looking for a straw to clutch just, before I start thinking of paying for his legal advice, some prospect of his prospects.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 08/12/2017 at 22:11
|
|
Mine, and I think possibly most people's view, is that the law is rarely certain. My uncle, a prominent solicitor, warned me not to give too much deference to a solicitor's advice. That is what it is 'advice'. If wrong their defence is that you didn't have to take it.
A purely personal opinion is that I would accept that he had no intention of driving : if it can be proved that it was his custom to be there without moving off and there was no apparent reason for him to drive. Was he thought be having a meditation session before setting off in the car ?
|
Mine, and I think possibly most people's view, is that the law is rarely certain. My uncle, a prominent solicitor, warned me not to give too much deference to a solicitor's advice. That is what it is 'advice'. If wrong their defence is that you didn't have to take it.
A purely personal opinion is that I would accept that he had no intention of driving : if it can be proved that it was his custom to be there without moving off and there was no apparent reason for him to drive. Was he thought be having a meditation session before setting off in the car ?
The police argument in court would be that he was stoned - he'd started the car, was intending to drive, but was so off his face that he forgot to start driving.
Just like if a drunk was sitting/dozing behind the wheel of a car with the engine running.
|
The police argument in court would be that he was stoned - he'd started the car, was intending to drive, but was so off his face that he forgot to start driving.
Just like if a drunk was sitting/dozing behind the wheel of a car with the engine running.
Thanks for that Rob. The engine was not running but the Copper, placed in witness box, will say it was. So The Lad has to refute that, so as to show, with other evidence of his habitual behaviour that there was, on what seems to be a balance of probability test, no prospect of him driving?
A can see that might be a tall order!!
|
The engine was not running but the Copper, placed in witness box, will say it was.
How can you possibly know that?
|
The engine was not running but the Copper, placed in witness box, will say it was.
How can you possibly know that?
Surmise.
|
|
|
Fair point . I concede but outcome still uncertain.
|
|
Your son had just finished his shift & was having his first spliff.
Hopefully he had not had any canabis in the previous 12+ hours ?
His mouth ( where they take their saliva test from ) would have had a very high concentration of canabis having just smoked. So instant fail of the roadside test.
His blood shouldn't have had anywhere near the same concentration & this is where the evidence has to come from.
I'm assuming the drug test is similar to the drink test, in that there is a certain limit that has to be exceeded.
Lets hope he is below that limit & learns a usefull lesson.
|
|
With hindsight he would have been better to have sat in the back rather than driving seat, easier to deny intention of driving.
|
Presumably the difficulty with the black box evidence suggestion is that it will simply show that the vehicle had been driven shortly prior to the police involvement. It wouldn't be at all difficult to reach the conclusion that it is probable the driver was also likely to have been under the influence earlier on, behind the wheel. Cannabis users tend not to be particularly selective about when they're stoned, sadly.
|
|
Bromp in your OP you say that he had the ignition on for music and benefit of blower fan. Are you just saying that the ignition was on or that the engine was actually running ? I am only asking this as I can't remember the last car I had where the blower fan came on until the engine was running (though of course his car may be different) & secondly why would he want to be blowing cold air over him ?
Edited by andyp on 10/12/2017 at 08:28
|
|
First of all, the forensics for the blood tests cannot take six months. A prosecution has to be laid with the court within six months from the date of the offence so they must be complete and a decision made before then. There are two possible charges – one (which seems the one the police have chosen) is “Driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle with concentration of specified controlled drug above specified limit”. To support this charge there must be evidence of drug concentration above the prescribed limit. The level of impairment is not an issue. The other charge - driving or in charge whilst unfit through drink or drugs, requires evidence of impairment and a preliminary impairment test must be conducted. However, the penalties for the two are more or less the same and, importantly, a statutory defence exists for both. So:
“Any intention he may have had has no baring, the offense is complete.”
Certainly the offence is complete. However:
And legally, he has no defence.
Yes he does. There he may be able to take advantage of the statutory defence which (Road Traffic Act, S4.3) says this:
For the purposes of subsection (2) above, a person shall be deemed not to have been in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle if he proves that at the material time the circumstances were such that there was no likelihood of his driving it so long as he remained unfit to drive through drink or drugs.
The situation you describe could only be decided upon in court. Nobody here can tell you whether your son has good enough grounds to plead Not Guilty and put forward the statutory defence. He needs to consult a solicitor when he has the “Initial Details of the Prosecution Case” (which he must be served with before he attends court to enter his plea).
|
|
An excellent summary from Middleman once again, put so even a clot like me could understand.
I have had nothing worth contributing to this thread legally, so i'll just offer my sincere sympathy for the situation you find yourself in Bromp, sometimes you could cheerfully throttle the young blighters for the daft things they do which can have lasting repercussions because we don't know what the next fashionable crusade will be, we've been around long enough to see how topsy turvy things can get where what was once black is now white (nothing to do with race merely an expression) and those of the former persuasion find themselves hounded, they haven't been around long enough.
However, i'm of a somewhat unfashionable view about such things as the drug in question, any drugs come to that, it isn't the nice relaxing harmless weed as some (those who would make money and/or tax and prefer an unthinking populace, and who's views are unquestioned by the MSM) would have us believe, it can and does have permanent and damaging effects on the minds of some, an unknown percentage, of users, i have rather too personal knowledge of this in my own family which i won't go into, IMHO you want your son off this garbage as soon as possible if he'll listen.
Edited by gordonbennet on 11/12/2017 at 13:51
|
|
Whatever the outcome of this particular event I hope your son learns a lesson about drugs, driving etc & Hope that in future he sees the error of his current ways, I
t could be a very hard lesson - drug fines, driving bans OR maybe just a warning - either way I wish hime the best.
|
An excellent summary from Middleman once again, put so even a clot like me could understand.
I have had nothing worth contributing to this thread legally, so i'll just offer my sincere sympathy for the situation you find yourself in Bromp, sometimes you could cheerfully throttle the young blighters for the daft things they do which can have lasting repercussions because we don't know what the next fashionable crusade will be, we've been around long enough to see how topsy turvy things can get where what was once black is now white (nothing to do with race merely an expression) and those of the former persuasion find themselves hounded, they haven't been around long enough.
However, i'm of a somewhat unfashionable view about such things as the drug in question, any drugs come to that, it isn't the nice relaxing harmless weed as some (those who would make money and/or tax and prefer an unthinking populace, and who's views are unquestioned by the MSM) would have us believe, it can and does have permanent and damaging effects on the minds of some, an unknown percentage, of users, i have rather too personal knowledge of this in my own family which i won't go into, IMHO you want your son off this garbage as soon as possible if he'll listen.
I quite agree, especially when its effects can cause impaired judgement well after someone has finished their joint etc or, as you say, leading to mental health problems if used over several years to a reasonable degree. I'd also be worried if I was a parent or head-teacher of those he is learning to teach - it also hardly sets a good example, and, for far more people than most realise, makes the progression on to harder drugs an easier path.
|
|
May i make a suggestion Bromp, whenever this thread has served its time and you've digested the very good responses from other posters (maybe even screen shot the ones most useful), that you ask Avant to delete it, reasons i don't need to explain.
|
. I'd also be worried if I was a parent or head-teacher of those he is learning to teach - it also hardly sets a good example
I do wish people would read the thread properly before posting judgmental stuff like this. He's not training to be a teacher, he's delivering Pizzas until a suitable job comes up. It's his OH who's doing the PGCE.
|
|
Thanks Middleman. We're both on same page as regards possible defence.
As to six months for forensics I only know what he's told me the Police told him.
|
I am only asking this as I can't remember the last car I had where the blower fan came on until the engine was running (though of course his car may be different) & secondly why would he want to be blowing cold air over him ?
Certainly both our cars, Citroen and Skoda, the fan will work provided ignition is on. No need for engine to be turning. Cold air was just to keep interior fresh and blow smoke out.
|
I am only asking this as I can't remember the last car I had where the blower fan came on until the engine was running (though of course his car may be different) & secondly why would he want to be blowing cold air over him ?
Certainly both our cars, Citroen and Skoda, the fan will work provided ignition is on. No need for engine to be turning. Cold air was just to keep interior fresh and blow smoke out.
If Bromptonaut’s son puts forward the statutory defence that I mentioned, whether or not the engine was running, or whether or not a key was in the ignition, will be of scant importance. He will have to show that “…the circumstances were such that there was no likelihood of his driving it so long as he remained unfit to drive through drink or drugs.” (or more properly in his case, which I should have correctly cited earlier, “whilst the proportion of the specified controlled drug inn his blood or urine remained likely to exceed the specified limit for that drug”).
The test of the likelihood of him driving is hardly influenced by whether or not the engine is running. He could have every intention of driving but be discovered "in charge" before he started the engine. Conversely he could have the engine running (in order, say, to keep warm or cool) and have no intention to drive. It’s more to do with his plans or intentions. He has to convince the court that he had no plans to drive and that there was no likelihood of him doing so. Having the engine running – or not – by itself is unlikely to sway the court one way or the other.
I encountered a case very similar to this earlier this year. It was concerning excess alcohol rather than drugs, but the statutory defence available is the same. The defendant was caught with the engine running (to keep warm). But he managed to convince the Bench that he had no intention of driving until the parking restrictions where he was parked came into effect at 8am the next morning. He was consequently acquitted. One thing he was required to do was to prove to the court that his alcohol reading would have returned to a legal level by that time. He needed expert evidence for that and it may be a consideration for Bromptonaut's son if the time he intended to resume driving was on the cusp of him "sobering up" (or whatever the equivalent is for returning to a legal drug level is).
Edited by Middleman on 11/12/2017 at 17:36
|
|
Any update on the situation Bromptonaut? I hope your son has prepared a good defence or managed to get the police/cps to see sense about the offence and the nature of it.
Cheers Concrete
|
Any update on the situation Bromptonaut? I hope your son has prepared a good defence or managed to get the police/cps to see sense about the offence and the nature of it.
Cheers Concrete
No, he was told there would be a long wait for forensics so not expecting anyting yet. It's causing him some anxiety though in case it comes up on pre-employment checks for a job he's been offered in the Home Office.
|
|
Presumably the forensics are to determine what he was smoking. I though that personal use canabis was not treated as a major offence, but I suppose even a police caution would end up on record. He may get lucky and the CPS may have other fish to fry. Did they determine if they would press for the offence of being in charge of a vehicle? If it is any comfort one of mine had an in charge offence when sleeping it off in the car. A fine and 9 month ban, not even driving and the keys were in a coat on another seat. I don't know if these offences age off but it did not stop them from being employed by the Home Office for the Prison Service then the Police. Terrible to have it hanging over him though with all the uncertainty. Good luck.
Cheers Concrete
|
|
Just to close this one.
The Lad had a visit from Police last night. Drugged driving charge dropped. Caution for possession accepted.
Lesson hopefully learned.
|
|
Sounds like the best outcome you (and he) could have hoped for. It must be a relief that the matter is now closed.
|
|
I'm very pleased for him and your family too Bromp.
|
|
Good result. Thanks for letting us know. I imagine the toxicology showed the levels to be under the limit.
|
Just to close this one.
The Lad had a visit from Police last night. Drugged driving charge dropped. Caution for possession accepted.
Lesson hopefully learned.
Sorry for the late reply. Just returned from our winter jaunt to the sunshine.
I am pleased the for your son and the outcome. I thought the police and cps would take the expediant route given the offence itself and the other crimes with which they have to deal. I suppose a police caution will be offered and accepted. Does this appear as a criminal charge? Not sure how it all works. Good luck to the lad anyway. As you say, a life lesson not to forget.
Cheers Concrete
|
Just to close this one.
The Lad had a visit from Police last night. Drugged driving charge dropped. Caution for possession accepted.
Lesson hopefully learned.
He is a very lucky lad. Middleman must be right that the measured levels of drug were too low. Speaking as someone who was fond of Mary Jane when much younger, the other poster is right, it is not a benign drug. It has a proven association with psychosis, albeit causality has not been proven, that is very hard to prove either way. It took decades to prove that tobacco caused cancer. And it damages short and long term memory, and damages the lungs. As for hard drugs, I’ve known loads of people who used cannabis, I’ve never met anyone who went on to hard drugs.
|
|
He is a very lucky lad. Middleman must be right that the measured levels of drug were too low. Speaking as someone who was fond of Mary Jane when much younger, the other poster is right, it is not a benign drug. It has a proven association with psychosis, albeit causality has not been proven, that is very hard to prove either way. It took decades to prove that tobacco caused cancer. And it damages short and long term memory, and damages the lungs. As for hard drugs, I’ve known loads of people who used cannabis, I’ve never met anyone who went on to hard drugs.
It was either low measured level or recognition that the 'no probability of driving until sober' defence was a runner and not worth expense of pushing charge.
The link with psychosis and causality being unproven is an interesting example of the correlation/causation phenomenon. He was self medicating his depression and insomnia. Equaly likely that someone would self medicate psychosis?
|
|
|
|
|
|
