Camera Craniums

General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Oldboy on August 08, 2012, 10:53:54 PM

Title: Is this true?
Post by: Oldboy on August 08, 2012, 10:53:54 PM
A tourist has been arrested after 'drink driving' from her friend's caravan to her own in a holiday park in Wales.
 
A court was told yesterday how a policeman, who was at the Presthaven Sands Holiday Park in Gronant on another matter, followed Lisa Docktray, 41, after being concerned at the way she was driving.
 
Ms Docktray was found to have an alcohol reading of 102 microgrammes, well above the legal limit of 35.
 
She was banned from driving for two years, fined £85, and sent on a drink impaired driver's course run by the probation service.
 
Gwyn Jones, defending, said his client believed it was OK to drive as she thought the holiday park was private land.
 
He told the Daily Post: "She believed that it was private ground and that she could drive.
 "This was the first time she had done it."
 
It was explained to her that if the pubic had even limited access, then it was a public area. Mr Jones said Ms Docktray was a "lady of unblemished character", who was "ashamed" of her behaviour.

I wonder if that applies to photography, as it would make any area which restricts photography but allows public access, unable to stop you taking photos.  ???
 
Title: Re: Is this true?
Post by: mondmagu on August 09, 2012, 01:56:37 PM
Oldboy if this explanation is true and legal, then practically everywhere is public! If a neighbour calls in to your home or the postman or the milk man,does this make your property public since we all are "members of the public"?????  Seems wrong to me! :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
Title: Re: Is this true?
Post by: Hinfrance on August 09, 2012, 03:31:42 PM
It may have changed since my law degree (it was a long long time ago) but the definition of a public space would certainly have excluded a caravan park. But in those long ago days it was only an offence to be 'drunk' in charge of a vehicle on a public highway, which includes the pavement and lay-by areas, but certainly not your own drive or any roadways where you could only be present with the agreement of the owner.

But, as I say, might well have changed - laws only ever go one way, becoming more and more restrictive. Probably be an offence soon to just own a bottle of beer and a car at the same time. Or to drive the latter at any speed at all, anywhere.
Title: Re: Is this true?
Post by: spinner on August 09, 2012, 06:25:22 PM
I am not an expert on Brit law but a lot of our law is based on yours, so, think it's entirely dependent on what the Offence definition is.

Here in Canada the offence is the doing, not the where. Public/Private doesn't come into it. The offence is to operate while impaired. You could, technically get done for "Impaired Driving" in your own garage if there's enough space to move the vehicle backward or forward.
Title: Re: Is this true?
Post by: Oldboy on August 09, 2012, 07:18:20 PM
I was always under the impression that, if you where on private land and more than fifteen yards from a road, the law couldn't touch you.  :P
Title: Re: Is this true?
Post by: anglefire on August 09, 2012, 09:28:15 PM
I do know that when driving on say forestry commission land when setting up a motorsport event (Or any other time) then the speed limit applies of I think 30mph, but possibly lower - and only during the speed event can the speed limit be broken. Having said that. I've never heard of any one being nicked.

But in this case, I would say its a hard one - what would happen if she had knocked someone over?

We all know that many shopping centres are private land with public access and they often restrict photographic activities.
Title: Re: Is this true?
Post by: Matthew on August 09, 2012, 10:19:20 PM
Private land or not, she was operating a vehicle whilst under the influence and therefore not in full control. If you done that at work, on say a forklift truck, you'd be handed your p45 and out the door......you are not only responsible for the safe operation of the machinery/equipment in your possesion, but also responsible the safety of the people around you......I know this is a bit off track, but the "environment" she was in is in someways similar, she was in a place which is shared with other patrons. She took charge of a vehicle whilst unfit to do so and not only putting her own safety at risk, but also the safety of others.......simple fact is you don't drink and drive, full stop.

On a lighter note though, what I want to know is, how big is this caravan park that she had to drive to get to and from the two caravans?? :uglystupid2:
Title: Re: Is this true?
Post by: Oldboy on August 09, 2012, 11:59:19 PM
My point isn't if it was wrong for her to drive whilst drunk but rather the statement by the judge. If that is the law then no private premises or grounds, which allow public access, can stop you taking pictures, as you are on public grounds.  :tup:
Title: Re: Is this true?
Post by: ABERS on August 10, 2012, 08:28:53 AM
Surely you are a member of the public, which encompasses everyone, on private grounds.
Title: Re: Is this true?
Post by: donoreo on August 10, 2012, 02:09:54 PM
It sounds like the judge is trying to change the law.  It is not a bad idea,  just because it is private land she could still hurt people and damage property.  That is the logic behind our law here, it does not matter where you are, you cannot be in control of a vehicle, including bicycles,  while impaired. 
Title: Re: Is this true?
Post by: Hinfrance on August 10, 2012, 03:43:24 PM
There are certainly a large number of criminal laws that apply universally, I'm not convinced that traffic laws are amongst those - for example, many people teach their children to drive on private land - if motoring laws applied that would be driving without a licence. Speed limits cannot apply (ever been to a race track?) neither does vehicle construction and use, so while she may have been guilty of criminal damage or manslaughter if she crashed into something or someone I'm not sure how she could have committed a motoring offence per se.
Title: Re: Is this true?
Post by: mondmagu on August 10, 2012, 06:36:32 PM
As Oldboy says,the point in question is the comment in red,not the fact that she was intoxicated(which cannot be condoned in any way!!).
In this case if someone was injured,would it not be the responsibility of the caravan park owners under public liability insurance as it happened on their premises????
Title: Re: Is this true?
Post by: Beaux Reflets on August 10, 2012, 07:15:34 PM
It makes perfect sense for Laws of the land designed to protect the public being applied where property is open to the public. If the driver was the only 'private quest' of the caravan park owner then the officer would probably not have been on the site.