Drunk in charge of vehicle defence

[BooSaidTheGhost]

DP and I had a stupid row which turned into a loud and heated argument late at night last weekend. Slamming doors and shouting, police were called by a neighbour. This has never happened before. We have always been able to resolve disagreements relatively calmly and both agree this must never happen again. He is devastated about how he behaved and how much he upset me, and I feel the same. We'd both consumed alcohol, him more than me but neither of us drunk. He went outside into the garden at my insistence to get some air and calm down. It was lashing down with rain, very windy and he took shelter in his car which was parked directly in front of our house on a private lane. The alarm kept sounding so he sat in the driver's seat and put the key in the ignition to disable it but didn't switch on the engine. The vehicle maker's app on his phone connected to the car shows a record of the alarm sounding and what time. He then texted me to say he was extremely sorry, that the car alarm kept going off, he couldn't legally drive anywhere, and could he come into the house to sleep on the sofa in our lounge. I wasn't able to reply, that is the exact moment when the police arrived. He was breathalysed and found to be just above the limit. They arrested him and have charged him with being drunk in charge of a vehicle. My understanding of this is that there must be a reasonable belief the person intends to drive, is that correct? He categorically was not going to drive the car, he was preparing to come back into the house and would never have put himself or other people at risk. I told this to the officers as did he but they seemed uninterested. It seems ludicrous that for a few brief moments sheltering from awful weather in the car, cooling off after an argument and asking me if he come back in, as he said in his messages, turning off the car alarm they have concluded he was intending to drive. Is it worth trying to defend this? Local solicitors are quoting £2,400 to do so. We are terrified he'll lose his license which would make work/family life very hard, and that a record will cause issues at work, the nature of which means he has to have special security clearances.

The fact is that you are starting things as fact when you've just made it up.

Stating

Have you actually read the op?
The neighbours called out the police before he was arrested for being in charge.

I’ve shared the magistrates sentencing guideline for drunk in charge. It literally says ban is discretionary at some levels of alcohol. It is not an automatic ban. OP doesn’t say he had been charged with drunk driving which is an automatic ban.

Yes legal aid is difficult but I have no idea of the OP’s circumstances so they may well qualify.

I agree pleading guilty is probably the best course, with a solicitor to help mitigate the sentence.

As I say, so much bad advice here. I’ve literally sentenced people in almost identical scenarios and they haven’t been banned.

OP, please let this exchange alone show how important it is to have someone who knows the law beside you in court.

I have very rarely even seen the lower alcohol levels actually in court. All of the cases we deal with are mid to upper end and always carry a disqualification. I have never ever seen the lowest category in reality in court.

Without op returning with a reading it’s impossible to say.

I am not sure where you are, but legal aid would not be available here for a case like this. It’s barely being awarded now even for much more serious offences.

The cost of legal representation will be onerous, and largely pointless unless op can be sure of a technicality. Some genuine remorse, an EGP and an honest appeal for leniency might serve them just as well, along with any reasons why driving is essential to their lives such as disability etc.

There is a lot of misinformation on this thread. To deal with a few points...

OP says her husband was on a private lane. The offence of being drunk in charge only applies if the alleged offender is on a public road or public land. The definition of what classes as a public road or public land is complex. A housing estate road used only by residents and their visitors is not a public road, but a housing estate road used by the public is. Roads on a farm are not public roads, but a road to a farm used by the general public is. A car park attached to a pub is a public place when the pub is open, but not when the pub is closed. A car park shared by several businesses with no barrier but with signs telling the public not to use it is not a public place. Without knowing a lot more about this private lane, it is impossible to say whether it was a public road or public land. I certainly wouldn't trust the police to get it right.

Contrary to what some have said, it is a defence to show that the circumstances were such that there was no likelihood of the accused driving the vehicle whilst over the limit. Some people think this defence would fail. Some of them forget that, as this is a criminal offence, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There was a case earlier this year where a man went to a meeting in a pub, then went and sat in his car outside the pub with the engine running while he called a friend on his mobile phone, asking him for a lift home. The police spotted him and arrested him for being drunk in charge and using a mobile phone whilst driving. After reviewing the facts, the prosecution dropped both charges. I am not saying the OP's husband would be able to get an acquittal on these facts, but it is not as impossible as some people think.

This offence does not carry an automatic ban. Drink driving does, but not being drunk in charge. If he was only just over the limit, the starting point for sentencing is a band B fine (75%-125% of relevant weekly income) and 10 points. That is also the heaviest sentence he can receive. It can be reduced to a band A fine (25%-75% of relevant weekly income) and 10 points.

Honestly Kissingfrogs25 you do talk a load of rubbish.

The police don't ban people - that's the job of the courts...because, you know, innocent until proven guilty and all. Or have you never heard of that!

OP @prh47bridge is actually a lawyer. I'd listen to him rather than people who claim to be legal adjacent talking crap

These are the sentencing guideline's and it depends on what he blew

www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/excess-alcohol-in-charge-revised-2017/

This is very timely (from a barrister) and supports what some posters have mentioned already