The Supreme Court has ruled that a man who was found asleep at the wheel of a parked car with the keys in the ignition and was convicted of being in charge of the car with intent to drive with excess alcohol, may be found to be "in charge" of the car with intent to drive.
The three-judge court decided that once found to be in charge of the car, the man may be presumed to have an intention to drive it and it was for him to rebut that presumption. In deciding his intention at the time he was found asleep in the car, the trial judge may also consider his intention before he went to sleep. The intention to drive did not have to be immediate.
Mr Justice Murray said it would not be a defence for the man to admit he was in charge of a vehicle with intent to drive while unfit due to the consumption of alcohol but that he did not intend to drive for some hours. The man was convicted of drink-driving by the District Court and appealed that decision to the Circuit Court, where Judge Michael White referred two questions to the Supreme Court.
These asked (1) whether, on the facts of the case, Judge White could hold the man was in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place with intent to drive and (2), could the judge consider the intention of the man before he went to sleep. In a reserved judgment yesterday, the Supreme Court answered Yes to both questions.
Mr Justice Murray said a garda observed a car parked on the hard shoulder of the Navan Road, Ashtown, Dublin, about 1.20 a.m. on February 13th, 1998. The lights were on and the garda could see a man asleep in the driver's seat. The garda knocked on the window but got no response.
He opened the car door and saw the keys in the ignition which were turned to ready. The garda called to him to wake up.
The garda asked him to step out of the car and noticed he was unsteady on his feet. The garda cautioned him and asked him had he anything to drink. He replied "a few". The man was arrested for being drunk in charge of a car. A urine sample later showed 228 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of urine.
Mr Justice Murray noted the man had given evidence he was sleeping deeply until awoken by the garda and, at that time, he did not have any intention to drive the car. He had also said he fell asleep without intending to do so.
On the facts, the Circuit Court judge was entitled to hold that the man was in charge of the car when the garda arrived on the scene. The fact the man had fallen asleep involuntarily did not alter the position. Judge White then had to decide if the man was in charge of the car "with intent to drive".
The legislation contained a presumption of intention to drive which had to be rebutted by a defendant. This latter matter had to be determined on the particular facts of the case.
Mr Justice Murray said it had been argued that the man could not have intended to drive because he was asleep but, he said, intention was a sense of purpose as to future action. The fact that a person who was in charge of a car fell asleep, even involuntarily, did not mean an intention had ceased to exist.
The circumstances pertaining to the man's presence in the car before falling asleep and his intentions at that time were material to the offence with which he was charged and, in particular, the issue as to whether he had, at a relevant time, an intention to drive, the judge also found. The trial judge was entitled to consider these.