Quote:
Originally Posted by danielf
But that's different. The car had clearly been driven, and the owner was in possession of the keys and drunk, so it's highly likely that an offence has taken place(of course they still have to prove it was him that drove the car).
|
But they don't have to prove the car was driven - that's what the offence of 'drunk in charge' is for. If they can prove that it was driven by him, then of course they could go for the full-blown drink driving ticket.
Quote:
|
It just seems strange to me that the onus is on the driver to prove he/she didn't intend to drive.
|
In court, it would still be for the prosecution to make a case, beyond reasonable doubt, that the man was 'in charge' of the car. They can't just get up in front of the judge and say 'he done it m'lud, and the Crown rests'. The burden of proof hasn't been turned on its head. But
if the prosecution can do that, at that point the onus is on the defence to prove mitigating circumstances sufficient to avoid a guilty verdict.