Drunk in charge whilst asleep. (1 Viewer)

[daventess]

Just came across this video. In summary, if you sleep in your motorhome whilst drunk you are technically in charge of that vehicle whilst drunk and could be prosecuted (the motorhome bit is towards the end) :



I assume this is only when on public roads, but even so.

Thoughts?

 

[suavecarve]

V5 on its way to DVLA

Sally, The words you should utter are "Officer, I am the registered keeper of this vehicle and David is the person I nominated as the driver and he has decided to have too many drinks and I distinctly remember him saying he was going for a drive later in the night, where do I sign your pocket note book ?"

 

[meanders]

To answer one point raised earlier you do not need to be in the vehicle to be committing offences.

I take it from that I could be pitched on a site, say drinking in my awning, hanging door open, keys in pocket in case it slams and locks, and I can still be done for being drunk in charge. Now I know why some groups put all the van keys into a bowl at evenings?

 

[SpeedyDux]

Blimey. Maybe I should give up drinking when pitched up.

Although ... giving up drinking ... tough ask! Raises that old legal conundrum about impossible attempts.

 

[nicholsong]

The complications with the above probably arise from oddly worded legislation. S4 and S5 Road Traffic Act 1988 deal with drunk in charge/excess alcohol but are worded slightly differently. S5 defence is perfectly clear that the 'defence' is only available in court, not at the road side, whilst S4 implies the same but is not worded so specifically. In other words if arrested for drunk in charge or in charge whilst over the prescribed limit the defence is against the charge not the arrest. So either way it would be a court appearance unless CPS follow the 'not in the public interest' route. To answer one point raised earlier you do not need to be in the vehicle to be committing offences.

A Police Officer before any arrest for whatever charge would first have to establish who is in charge of the vehicle - difficult if two or more persons are asleep in a MH and they all say 'Not me' or we have not decided for tomorrow, because we are not leaving until 1300.

Then how does the Officer choose who to breathalyse? And for what reason? I doubt whether 'sleeping drunk in a MH' would get past the Desk Sgt, never mind the CPS.

I think these 'on the spot' difficulties for Officers could go further to explain the lack of arrests, never mind prosecutions.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[nicholsong]

I take it from that I could be pitched on a site, say drinking in my awning, hanging door open, keys in pocket in case it slams and locks, and I can still be done for being drunk in charge. Now I know why some groups put all the van keys into a bowl at evenings?

Just have hab key in pocket and invite the Officer to start the engine.

 

[daventess]

A Police Officer before any arrest for whatever charge would first have to establish who is in charge of the vehicle - difficult if two or more persons are asleep in a MH and they all say 'Not me' or we have not decided for tomorrow, because we are not leaving until 1300.

Then how does the Officer choose who to breathalyse? And for what reason? I doubt whether 'sleeping drunk in a MH' would get past the Desk Sgt, never mind the CPS.

I think these 'on the spot' difficulties for Officers could go further to explain the lack of arrests, never mind prosecutions.

I'd love to know the stats (god knows where from though) on any successful prosecutions, but I just can't imagine them bothering to wake up sleeping occupants, or even knocking on the door of awake ones unless "something else" was going on, or one was being a gobsh*te to them. Just seems unlikely to me (but I will be taking precautions from now on!)

 

[Odd job]

The drink driving law is a mess. I have no doubt that it has saved lives but the idea that people can be prosecuted for not driving when over the limit is wrong. I have a car on my drive so anytime I have a drink I have the ability to drive over the limit I also have a kitchen knife so I have the ability to commit murder. If someone has a drink too many and decides to sleep it off in the back of the car, they are more likely to be prosecuted than if they drive home.

 

[David and Sally]

The drink driving law is a mess. I have no doubt that it has saved lives but the idea that people can be prosecuted for not driving when over the limit is wrong. I have a car on my drive so anytime I have a drink I have the ability to drive over the limit I also have a kitchen knife so I have the ability to commit murder. If someone has a drink too many and decides to sleep it off in the back of the car, they are more likely to be prosecuted than if they drive home.

Assuming your drive is private land then no offences.

 

[Al n Val]

The best way to avoid any confrontational discussions with plod and avoid any risk of arrests when he/she knocks on the door is quite simple

Don’t answer the bloody door

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Odd job]

Assuming your drive is private land then no offences.

My point is I shouldn't be at risk of prosecution just because I have the opportunity to commit an offence. We all have the opportunity to commit many offences we should only be prosecuted for an offence we have committed

 

[David and Sally]

My point is I shouldn't be at risk of prosecution just because I have the opportunity to commit an offence. We all have the opportunity to commit many offences we should only be prosecuted for an offence we have committed

Quite right. But being in charge of a motor vehicle on a public highway or a public place whilst over the prescribed limit is an offence. The offence is being committed at that time, not some time in the future.

 

[meanders]

Every time I go shopping I have the opportunity to steal from a supermarket.

 

[Odd job]

Quite right. But being in charge of a motor vehicle on a public highway or a public place whilst over the prescribed limit is an offence. The offence is being committed at that time, not some time in the future.

Yes but that is what I believe is wrong, if I drive to a pub and drink too much and decide to walk home, I could be prosecuted if I walk through the car park. Also applies if I park my car at home on the road and walk past it after a night out. That is wrong

 

[David and Sally]

Yes but that is what I believe is wrong, if I drive to a pub and drink too much and decide to walk home, I could be prosecuted if I walk through the car park. Also applies if I park my car at home on the road and walk past it after a night out. That is wrong

Your defence would be that you had no intention to drive, were not showing any intention to drive (keys in pocket)(walking past your car). However, if you decided to get your jacket out of the car before walking home and used the keys to unlock the door that could be construed as intending to drive. In that case it would be what the officer perceived you as doing and what your intentions are.
Millions of people walk past their car on the highway on the way back from the pub with their house keys on their car ring but show no intention to drive by simply walking past.

I have golf clubs at home. No offence there. But if I stored one down by my drivers car door I could be arrested for possession of an offensive weapon, just like a baseball bat or hammer.

These have been the laws for decades and they appear to work.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Nigel P]

I think some of the posts are getting a bit carried away down the 'what if' route. The fact that an offence may be taking place does not imply that it would necessarily be prosecuted. I recall one former Master of The Rolls commenting that it was not the intention of the criminal justice sytem to prosecute every offence, rather that statutes exist to deter casual offenders and concentrate on real baddies who don't care.
Most criminal offences have the element of reasonable suspicion that an offence is being committed, hence the likelihood of a bobby knocking you out of bed for a breath test is not really worth worrying about.

 

[Nanniemate]

They only have to wait until you move the van . Could be the next day . keys in ignition on. Thank you sir /madam breath it this

 

[Jim]

I think some of the posts are getting a bit carried away down the 'what if' route.

To say the least

 

[gus-lopez]

Has anyone been prosecuted or does anybody know anyone who has ever been prosecuted?

Yes a mate of mine who used a van for work ,.He used to sleep in it after a session at the rugby club.police knew the van. dragged him out one night asleep & done him for drink driving,,.

Polite knock on window was answered with a torrent of expletives when the door opened.

As it would be from me along with pepper spray.& I am teetotal.

Assuming your drive is private land then no offences.

There are.It has to be gated & locked otherwise it has "public access" as the postman,milk man etc can use it.

As to "keys in the ignition". since parking up at the daughters for a prolonged period & opening & closing van doors, to then one day find that the battery on the remote is flat, the only access door via key operation, the drivers* , is trapped 2" from the wall, you learn then that the remote battery is charged only when the keys are in the ignition.
So now when retiring at night the keys always go in the ignition.
* Not that it would have made any difference as the steel bars from B pillar to door frame would still have prevented entry without a cutting torch.

 

[David and Sally]

There are.It has to be gated & locked otherwise it has "public access" as the postman,milk man etc can use it.

As far as I know my private driveway is not a public place.

What is classed as a private driveway?

Google.....
Private driveway means any piece of privately owned and maintained property which is used for vehicular traffic, but is not open or normally used by the public.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Silver-Fox]

The correct response to the request to move would be to hand them the keys and tell them to move it 'as I do not know if I am fit to drive',

Personally I wouldn’t hand them the keys as they may not be insured.
So you would be encouraging one ie a Police Officer to commit a crime

 

[Stoosal]

As far as I know my private driveway is not a public place.

What is classed as a private driveway?

Google.....
Private driveway means any piece of privately owned and maintained property which is used for vehicular traffic, but is not open or normally used by the public.

It’s a very technical area and one situation doesn’t cover all cases but……just because it’s your driveway doesn’t mean it’s private in certain aspects of law. For example your driveway is ‘private’ but is open to the public such as postie, amazon deliveries, fast food deliveries and so on. It becomes private if there is a restriction as to who can access eg if there is a locked gate with access only available to restricted people. The same car park could be both private and public at different times due to restricted access etc. It’s probably more akin to access than ownership.

 

[David and Sally]

It sure is technical. But I doubt very much that my private driveway counts as a public place as far as Sec 5 RTA 1988 is concerned.

 

[Bobbejaan]

That makes both logical and legal sense thank you.

Without asking to much Bobbejaan, you obviously have some legal training in order to conclude thus? I further wondered if some of the scenario's discussed would amount to entrapment if seeking an admission from all the adult individuals therein? We already know, because the registration document tells us that the registered keeper may not be the actual owner, so who is 'in charge'? The person driving when you parked up?
If the keys are out of sight, even if someone is sleeping in the front of the vehicle, does that mean the person on the seat at the time is the one in charge and with intent? Hypothetical nonsense you would expect in a police state.

Much earlier, someone (Jim) said that the police don't have to prove anything, and that the individual has to prove that they were not intending to drive. I rarely disagree with our great leader, but that cannot be right as its at odds with our legal system, natural justice and the statute. The police MAY be able to get CPS to agree charging based on such whimsical idealism, (although I really doubt it) but no court should convict without the police/CPS proving 'intention to drive' by the presentation of evidence 'beyond reasonable doubt' unless a guilty plea was entered. It's always down to the prosecution to prove the case to gain a conviction, (and in which, a confession can only be admitted under certain circumstances as evidence, and to which the defence of 'duress' could easily be applied). Until a guilty plea or finding, the individual is innocent until proven guilty. Please note my emphasis. Yes, if the police are determined to find something they can pin on you, then something might stick, but I can't see it getting past any appeal court.

That said, anyone caught 'driving under the influence' should have the book thrown at them. But if parked up, and asleep, you are not 'driving'. Being awakened and 'told to move', then even that would be challengeable. The correct response to the request to move would be to hand them the keys and tell them to move it 'as I do not know if I am fit to drive', but it not 'reasonable' in law to expect people to think that when just woken, and there again would lay your defence.

There's a lot of your/various queries in your post ,,,, So I'll try to extract SOME of the more relevant snippets from your OP (in Underlined Italic) and answer them as best I can using the standard Font.

1 ... I further wondered if some of the scenarios discussed would amount to entrapment if seeking an admission from all the adult individuals therein? ......... The UK doesn't really have the same concept of "Entrapment" as the USA, except in VERY limited circumstance. Consequently, UK Police are generally VERY free to try and bamboozle or "trick" someone with "word play" into making an Unwise or Potentially-Incriminating statement or utterance. ...... Indeed, this bamboozle-type practice is actually usually taught as part of the normal training methods for questionioning people ..... EXAMPLE = "Do you know how fast you were going, laddy/lassie" >>> If you say NO, you were obviously Driving Without Due Care & Attention >>> If you say YES xxxMPH, you could well be taken to be either lying OR admitting guilt >>>>> The BEST answer is something along the lines of "I prefer to reserve comment for the moment until you have explained any potential problems"

2 ... If the keys are out of sight, even if someone is sleeping in the front of the vehicle, does that mean the person on the seat at the time is the one in charge and with intent? ........ It is hard to give a "catch all" answer as it would depend on the precise circumstances at the time, BUT in general, JUST being on the front seat where that person does NOT have the keys on them or easy-to-hand/in the ignition would be extremely hard to prosecute INTENT >>>>> In the specific case stated by Dickyb in his OP (namely = "we always put the keys in the safe and the seats are always rotated"), any attempted prosecution would (in the absence of an admission of intent) be almost certain to fail.

3 ... Much earlier, someone (Jim) said that the police don't have to prove anything, and that the individual has to prove that they were not intending to drive. I rarely disagree with our great leader, but that cannot be right as its at odds with our legal system, natural justice and the statute. The police MAY be able to get CPS to agree charging based on such whimsical idealism, (although I really doubt it) but no court should convict without the police/CPS proving 'intention to drive' by the presentation of evidence 'beyond reasonable doubt' unless a guilty plea was entered. .......... I must agree with you and I point out that the CPS/PF (like the Police & CPOs) tend to PHRASE what they say to show their own biased Point-Of-View or interpretation in the most favourable light to THEM. ....
..... Reluctantly I must also say that whilst Jim's Guide-Page is helpful, it is somewhat misleading as whilst much of the information regarding "Drinking alcohol in EXCESS of the Legal Limits" is valid, Jim's Page tends to give the unfortunate impression that ANY drinking of alcohol could get you arrested ... For example = "Jim says "build your defence before you have had a drink. If after you have been drinking you decide that you are parked in the wrong place or facing the wrong way, you only have to be seen in that seat, and you risk arrest."

4 ... It's always down to the prosecution to prove the case to gain a conviction, (and in which, a confession can only be admitted under certain circumstances as evidence, and to which the defence of 'duress' could easily be applied). .........
The first part is true enough, but for anything short of a witnessed/recorded beating of you to obtain your "confession" (which is extremely unlikely as most Police Officers tend to be far more honourable OR sneaky these days), then any "Duress" claim you make is very unlikely to succeed ...... EXAMPLE = A typical Police Verbal Confession is usually something along the lines of "Yes, your Honour ... The defendant then said to me at the roadside 'It's a fair cop, guv'ner. You've caught me bang-to-rights' ".

5 ... Until a guilty plea or finding, the individual is innocent until proven guilty. ......... Theoretically & Hopefully True, but the Law is (A) an Ass, and (B) a meat-grinder, so that supposedly Golden Principle is too often a meaningless fallacy >>>>>
EXAMPLE = Ask ANY Victim of a Miscarriage of Justice AND/OR any victim of an Official Abuse of Power/Authority.

6 ... That said, anyone caught 'driving under the influence' should have the book thrown at them. ....... I Wholeheartedly agree, and then some !!!

7 ... Being <...SNIP...> 'told to move', then even that would be challengeable. The correct response to the request to move would be to hand them the keys and tell them to move it 'as I do not know if I am fit to drive' ..........
Absolutely, NO Police Officer or Other "Authority" has the power to ORDER you to "Move the vehicle" OR to do anything that is both contrary to the Law AND a danger to public safety. >>>>> EXAMPLE = A Police Office could order you to drive the wrong way down a one-way street IF the circumstances warrant it AND it would be safe to do so .... BUT he does NOT have the power (= ultra vires) to ORDER you to drive or move a vehicle whilst you are (or believe you are) Drunk, Uninsured, or Unlicenced, etc !

SORRY for the long post, but I couldn't see any way to answer all your comments and queries in any shorter path.

PS ... I haven't read all the other posts following your OP yet, but I need a Mental Rest before I continue, so I ask all the other poster to understand that I have limited energy for medical reasons and I am NOT ignoring anybody's posts.

Cheers,
Bob

 

[Bobbejaan]

So if there were 2 people parked up on a campsite in a motorhome and as an Officer you suspected they might drive, which one of the 2 would you request a sample of breath from ? You need to determine if someone or sometwo had the intent of driving. If they are both over the limit and you suspect both were going to drive and they are, for example, both on the insurance as a married couple, but lets say number 1 was the registered owner but the front seat was set up for the significantly smaller number 2, which one would be arrested if you could only take one as only one person can be in charge.

I am unsure of any offence for which you can be charged for having the intent to drive without insurance, without licence etc.

I once nicked 3 people for driving the same vehicle at the same time along the same road whilst over the prescribed limit. It was a transit with no view of the driver from the back. As it stopped they all got into the passenger seat and nobody was in the drivers seat. Which one person should I have arrested if I follow the logic of your bolded statement ?Registered owner then has an option of naming the driver of the vehicle at the time ?
If I can only arrest one, I can only breathalise one as I am not aware of any power to breathalise a passenger, they have to be suspected of being in control or driving whilst over the limit (or moving road traffic offence)

You asked :- "So if there were 2 people parked up on a campsite in a motorhome and as an Officer you suspected they might drive, which one of the 2 would you request a sample of breath from ?"

A Police Officer can not legitimately ask ANYONE to provide a "breath sample" OR Drugs Wipe OR Produce Insurance OR Produce a Driving licence on the Purported Grounds that the person MIGHT (repeat MIGHT) DRIVE at some future point. ..... To do so would be ultra vires and any prosecution would almost certainly be deemed to be Legally Incompetent.

If you are a Police Officer, you should clearly know & understand that ..... You are wrongly conflating "Driving" with POSSIBLY "being in control of" a vehicle.

Furthermore, if you are a Police Officer, you have my deep sympathy as the Police often have a very difficult job AND often have to deal with a variety of low-life scumbags .... But that does NOT entitle any Police Officer to "Function Creep" the Legal Limits of their Powers beyond what the Statutes or Acts actually allow, NOR to act as a self-appointed Judge-Dredd based on their personal interpretation of the Law.

I'm not going to get drawn into a ever-widening barrage of increasingly hypothetical questions, as MOST such questions can often be self-answered by a simple self-application of the "man on the Clapham Omnibus" type Common Sense.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[starquake]

There are.It has to be gated & locked otherwise it has "public access" as the postman,milk man etc can use it.

Like the CAMC and CACC close (and lock) the gates past 11pm until 7am at many sites. Surely this makes it fine.

 

[Bobbejaan]

Like the CAMC and CACC close (and lock) the gates past 11pm until 7am at many sites. Surely this makes it fine.

Not necessarily ..... Even if the gates are closed & locked to the external public as gus-lopez stated, the site would or could STILL be regarded as having "public access" as the other already on-site resident, visitors, vans, staff, etc can still use it from WITHIN the site itself.

 

[Bobbejaan]

There is quite a difference between a Police Officer arresting someone on suspicion of being in control of a vehicle whilst over the prescribed limit and being charged with same offence to being convicted of same offence.

The first one is suspicion. If you are in your vehicle, you are in charge, if you are walking towards your vehicle with keys in your hand, you are in charge and therefore arrestable because the officer only needs suspicion in order to arrest.

Once arrested the officer has to try and prove the offence and you should be cautioned where they can make notes of the conversation and invite you to agree with the notes they made.

Then you are given a right to a solicitor who you may or may not seek advice from and perhaps even take it. Then there is an interview as they have to prove your intent to drive (even though you were in control)
In olden days you would then have to convince the Custody Sgt you had sufficient evidence to charge the person.
The conversation might go something like this.
"Sarge, he was on this campsite and we had been called because they were singing cum by yar loudly to the annoyance of a Morelo owner and I formed the opinion he was drunk, so I breathlysed him and he was over. I thought he might drive off at 0200 hrs even though his drivers seat was pointing in the wrong direction, the keys were in his safe and his blinds were pulled, in interview he told me he has booked for the week of camping but he is in control of his vehicle. Can we charge him"

Sgt "Son, how many crimes do you have on your workload? Do you know the most obscure job in the police where they send you when you are a complete idiot? Do I enjoy embarrassing you in front of all these fellow officers, prisoners and solicitors who are listening to the drivel coming out of your mouth ?"

At this point the previously presumed fine officer might like to withdraw the request for a charge, but lets say somehow it gets past the Sgt and the officer has to contact the CPS in order to charge this person, which would be a higher threshhold. I would strongly suspect that the answer in an e mail would be "Insufficient evidence not likely to bring a succesful prosecution at Court"

But lets say the CPS decided to go for it, in old terms, give it a run. (really really unrealistic) and you go to Court where 3 magistrates listen to your camping story and that there were 40 other vans there that were also singing cum by yah.

The only question that is on the lips of the magistrates is "I wonder if he was shagging the inspectors or the superintendants wife"

This may be the reason nobody can give a real account of being done for it if precautions are taken, even though you (your wife) are technically guilty.

Hopefully the Officer is then on a very steep learning curve or sent to the long term missing persons unit at the farthest point from their home address within the same County. A sure sign that the Officer needs to consider their position.

An EXCELLENT & quite True to Life & FUNNY post .... THANK YOU KINDLY.

I think I may possibly have met the 3rd-Party Police Officer you were referring to once or twice in my life, and he was very entertaining !

The only point I would note for the record is that that Police Officer would need a REASONABLE belief and suspicion .... not MERELY a vague/unspecific suspicion.

 

[suavecarve]

A Police Officer can not legitimately ask ANYONE to provide a "breath sample" OR Drugs Wipe OR Produce Insurance OR Produce a Driving licence on the Purported Grounds that the person MIGHT (repeat MIGHT) DRIVE at some future point. ..... To do so would be ultra vires and any prosecution would almost certainly be deemed to be Legally Incompetent.

Section 6A supplies the power to demand a breath test under the circs outlined

Road Traffic - Drink and Drug Driving | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

Section 6 RTA 1988 – Preliminary Impairment Testing​

Section 6 RTA 1988 provides a power for a constable to administer preliminary tests. Section 6A RTA 1988 provides for a preliminary breath test, 6B RTA 1988 for a preliminary impairment test and 6C RTA 1988 for a preliminary drug test. Sections 6D RTA 1988 and 6E RTA 1988 make provision about powers of arrest and powers of entry respectively in connection with the administration of preliminary tests.

The preliminary tests are:

• a breath test whereby a specimen of breath is taken by means of a device approved by the Secretary of State which indicates whether the proportion of alcohol in a person's breath or blood is likely to exceed the prescribed limit (section 6A RTA 1988).
• an impairment test, which consists of a series of physical tasks, set by the constable. By observing the person's ability to perform these tasks, and making such other observations of the person's physical state as the constable thinks expedient, the constable can obtain an indication whether the person is unfit to drive and, if he is, whether his unfitness is likely to be due to drink or drugs. The Secretary of State is required to issue and to keep under review a code of practice regarding such tests (section 6B RTA 1988)
• a drug test whereby a specimen of sweat or saliva is used, by means of a device approved by the Secretary of State, for the purpose of obtaining an indication whether a person has a drug in his body (section 6C RTA 1988). The police will carry out a roadside test, much in the same way as the screening breath test for alcohol. Current testing devices used under section 6C RTA 1988 only test for Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (the active ingredient of cannabis) and cocaine. If the result is positive, the suspect can be arrested and taken to a police station, where an evidential specimen of blood will be required.

A person commits an offence if they fail without reasonable excuse to co-operate with a constable's requirement for any one or more preliminary tests – section 6(6) RTA 1988.

Preliminary tests may be administered if a constable reasonably suspects that the person:

• is driving, is attempting to drive or is in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, and has alcohol or a drug in his body or is under the influence of a drug – section 6(2) RTA 1988
• has been driving, attempting to drive or in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place while having alcohol or a drug in his body or while unfit to drive because of a drug, and still has alcohol or a drug in his body or is still under the influence of a drug section 6(3) RTA 1988
• is or has been driving, attempting to drive or in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, and has committed a traffic offence while the vehicle was in motion section 6(4) RTA 1988
• an accident occurs owing to the presence of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, and a constable reasonably believes that the person was driving, attempting to drive or in charge of the vehicle at the time of the accident – section 6(5) RTA 1988.

A preliminary breath test administered in reliance on section 6(2) to (4) may be administered only at or near the place where the requirement to co-operate with the test is imposed – section 6A(2) RTA 1988.

Preliminary tests that may be administered at or near the place where the requirement to co-operate with the test is imposed, or if the constable who imposes the requirement thinks it expedient, at a specified police station, are set out at section 6A(3), section 6B(4) and section 6C(2) RTA 1988. They are a:

• preliminary breath test administered in reliance on section 6(5) RTA 1988
• preliminary impairment test or a
• preliminary drug test

 

[Bobbejaan]

Now, how about using the toilet when drunk ...

Rule 1 === Never drink pre-used Beer from the toilet ..... It tastes like piss ! (Don't ask me how I know ! )

Rule 2 === Never eat yellow or brown snow.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Bobbejaan]

Section 6A supplies the power to demand a breath test under the circs outlined

Section 6 RTA 1988 – Preliminary Impairment Testing​

Section 6 RTA 1988 provides a power for a constable to administer preliminary tests. Section 6A RTA 1988 provides for a preliminary breath test, 6B RTA 1988 for a preliminary impairment test and 6C RTA 1988 for a preliminary drug test. Sections 6D RTA 1988 and 6E RTA 1988 make provision about powers of arrest and powers of entry respectively in connection with the administration of preliminary tests.

Preliminary tests may be administered if a constable reasonably suspects that the person:

• is driving, is attempting to drive or is in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, and has alcohol or a drug in his body or is under the influence of a drug – section 6(2) RTA 1988

Unfortunately, you have taken my earlier reply out of context to the question you actually asked at the time about TWO (or possibly more) simultaneous vehicle-occupants, namely :-

You asked :- "So if there were 2 people parked up on a campsite in a motorhome and as an Officer you suspected they might drive, which one of the 2 would you request a sample of breath from ?"

And my answer was directly in the context that a Police Office could not "Reasonably Believe or Suspect" that TWO (or more) such occupants could SIMULTANEOUSLY be "driving, attempting to drive or in charge of (the SAME) motor vehicle" as you state in your subsequent/later highlighted Section 6 RTA 1988 quote which is (as stated) applicable to "A" or "The" (singular) person .... NOT a whole group/multiplicity of people in the same vehicle at the same time.

In line with the Act and your Legal Duty, you would still have to choose ONE such person/occupant as your "target" based upon a Reasonable Belief or Suspicion, and you could not legitimately "Blanket Test" EVERY such occupant of the target Motorhome/Bus/Car/etc or then choose to arrest/charge/prosecute everyone who failed any such blanket preliminary test on the supposed basis that they had ALL supposedly committed the same offence(s) simultaneously.

Your sergeant and/or inspector would probably reward such enthusiasm by arranging to have you posted to the Outer Mongolia Mounted-Yak Division as Liason Officer AFTER you had spent a year or two buying the daily cake-round at the station as a lesson to others.