Driver asleep in car is done for drunk in charge

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 2:03:20 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 26/02/2016 00:27, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 1:38:38 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 25/02/2016 08:35, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 2:33:55 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 25/02/2016 00:14, Tom Crispin wrote:

On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 11:57:37 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 24/02/2016 23:36, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 11:23:24 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:

Right now, I don't know exactly where are the keys to any of the three
cars parked on the drive. I am in charge of two of them.
Does that mean I don't have the keys?

Put your hand in your pocket, if they are there, or somewhere else on your person, you have them. If not, you don't.

I have a collection of CDs (quite a lot of them).
They aren't in my pocket and AAMOF, I could never lift them all in one
go, not even in a very big box with handles.
Does that mean I don't have them?

Earlier today my wife asked me to open the car, I said, "I don't have the keys". I knew exactly where they were, but I didn't have them.

That's a turn of phrase.
Law and legal cases do not turn on such trifles.

Wrong - they can and do.
A recent (and important) high court collective enfranchisement case turned on the interpretation of the term "residential".
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2014/2433.html

Court cases frequently turn upon the meaning of words used in the law.

But let's see whether you can find a case where the verb "to have" was
interpreted so as to be negated by having dropped the item from the
hands onto the floor of a car.

It is interesting to note that you think that every time most people walk down the local high street they have a kitchen knife.

Insofar as the word simply means "own", than many people will have such
an item.

Nut that is not the term of art meaning of "have" in the context of a
motor vehicle's ignition key when one is found sitting in the vehicle
whilst over the blood alcohol limit.

Neither, to her credit (and very wisely), did the defendant seek to rely
upon the sort of advice she might have received had she only consulted
Crispin Legal Services (SE).

I couldn't possibly better the legal advice she seems to have had. Plead guilty and plead guilty at the earliest possible opportunity.

I simply dispute your claim:
=====Quote=====
The driver *had* the keys
=====/Quote=====

Clearly she didn't anymore than I *had* a kitchen knife last time I went through airport security.

She was a few inches from them. And she knew it.

I forgot - you're the learned Solomon.

On 26/02/2016 07:57, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 2:03:20 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 26/02/2016 00:27, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 1:38:38 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 25/02/2016 08:35, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 2:33:55 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 25/02/2016 00:14, Tom Crispin wrote:

On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 11:57:37 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 24/02/2016 23:36, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 11:23:24 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:

Right now, I don't know exactly where are the keys to any of the three
cars parked on the drive. I am in charge of two of them.
Does that mean I don't have the keys?

Put your hand in your pocket, if they are there, or somewhere else on your person, you have them. If not, you don't.

I have a collection of CDs (quite a lot of them).
They aren't in my pocket and AAMOF, I could never lift them all in one
go, not even in a very big box with handles.
Does that mean I don't have them?

Earlier today my wife asked me to open the car, I said, "I don't have the keys". I knew exactly where they were, but I didn't have them.

That's a turn of phrase.
Law and legal cases do not turn on such trifles.

Wrong - they can and do.
A recent (and important) high court collective enfranchisement case turned on the interpretation of the term "residential".
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2014/2433.html

Court cases frequently turn upon the meaning of words used in the law.

But let's see whether you can find a case where the verb "to have" was
interpreted so as to be negated by having dropped the item from the
hands onto the floor of a car.

It is interesting to note that you think that every time most people walk down the local high street they have a kitchen knife.

Insofar as the word simply means "own", than many people will have such
an item.

Nut that is not the term of art meaning of "have" in the context of a
motor vehicle's ignition key when one is found sitting in the vehicle
whilst over the blood alcohol limit.

Neither, to her credit (and very wisely), did the defendant seek to rely
upon the sort of advice she might have received had she only consulted
Crispin Legal Services (SE).

I couldn't possibly better the legal advice she seems to have had. Plead guilty and plead guilty at the earliest possible opportunity.

I simply dispute your claim:
=====Quote=====
The driver *had* the keys
=====/Quote=====

Clearly she didn't anymore than I *had* a kitchen knife last time I went through airport security.

She was a few inches from them. And she knew it.

I forgot - you're the learned Solomon.

What has judgment - of any sort - got to do with the simple and
unassailable fact that the defendant was in charge of a motor vehicle
(indeed, she admitted that some at least of her alcohol intake had taken
place in the motor vehicle) and was over the prescribed blood alcohol limit?

There is nothing to judge: she was bang to rights.

If dropping the car keys into the footwell were a defence against the
charge of being drunk in charge, that would have come to the attention
of people like the famous Mr Loophole by now.

And people like you would be howling with indignation.

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 4:28:38 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 26/02/2016 07:57, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 2:03:20 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 26/02/2016 00:27, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 1:38:38 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 25/02/2016 08:35, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 2:33:55 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 25/02/2016 00:14, Tom Crispin wrote:

On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 11:57:37 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 24/02/2016 23:36, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 11:23:24 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:

Right now, I don't know exactly where are the keys to any of the three
cars parked on the drive. I am in charge of two of them.
Does that mean I don't have the keys?

Put your hand in your pocket, if they are there, or somewhere else on your person, you have them. If not, you don't.

I have a collection of CDs (quite a lot of them).
They aren't in my pocket and AAMOF, I could never lift them all in one
go, not even in a very big box with handles.
Does that mean I don't have them?

Earlier today my wife asked me to open the car, I said, "I don't have the keys". I knew exactly where they were, but I didn't have them.

That's a turn of phrase.
Law and legal cases do not turn on such trifles.

Wrong - they can and do.
A recent (and important) high court collective enfranchisement case turned on the interpretation of the term "residential".
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2014/2433.html

Court cases frequently turn upon the meaning of words used in the law.

But let's see whether you can find a case where the verb "to have" was
interpreted so as to be negated by having dropped the item from the
hands onto the floor of a car.

It is interesting to note that you think that every time most people walk down the local high street they have a kitchen knife.

Insofar as the word simply means "own", than many people will have such
an item.

Nut that is not the term of art meaning of "have" in the context of a
motor vehicle's ignition key when one is found sitting in the vehicle
whilst over the blood alcohol limit.

Neither, to her credit (and very wisely), did the defendant seek to rely
upon the sort of advice she might have received had she only consulted
Crispin Legal Services (SE).

I couldn't possibly better the legal advice she seems to have had. Plead guilty and plead guilty at the earliest possible opportunity.

I simply dispute your claim:
=====Quote=====
The driver *had* the keys
=====/Quote=====

Clearly she didn't anymore than I *had* a kitchen knife last time I went through airport security.

She was a few inches from them. And she knew it.

I forgot - you're the learned Solomon.

What has judgment - of any sort - got to do with the simple and
unassailable fact that the defendant was in charge of a motor vehicle
(indeed, she admitted that some at least of her alcohol intake had taken
place in the motor vehicle) and was over the prescribed blood alcohol limit?

You won't find me disputing that.

There is nothing to judge: she was bang to rights.

Nor that.

If dropping the car keys into the footwell were a defence against the
charge of being drunk in charge, that would have come to the attention
of people like the famous Mr Loophole by now.

I never claimed it was a loophole.

And people like you would be howling with indignation.

Not at all. I simply dispute that she had the keys when asked for them.

On 26/02/2016 17:41, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 4:28:38 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 26/02/2016 07:57, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 2:03:20 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 26/02/2016 00:27, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 1:38:38 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 25/02/2016 08:35, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 2:33:55 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 25/02/2016 00:14, Tom Crispin wrote:

On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 11:57:37 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 24/02/2016 23:36, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 11:23:24 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:

Right now, I don't know exactly where are the keys to any of the three
cars parked on the drive. I am in charge of two of them.
Does that mean I don't have the keys?

Put your hand in your pocket, if they are there, or somewhere else on your person, you have them. If not, you don't.

I have a collection of CDs (quite a lot of them).
They aren't in my pocket and AAMOF, I could never lift them all in one
go, not even in a very big box with handles.
Does that mean I don't have them?

Earlier today my wife asked me to open the car, I said, "I don't have the keys". I knew exactly where they were, but I didn't have them.

That's a turn of phrase.
Law and legal cases do not turn on such trifles.

Wrong - they can and do.
A recent (and important) high court collective enfranchisement case turned on the interpretation of the term "residential".
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2014/2433.html

Court cases frequently turn upon the meaning of words used in the law.

But let's see whether you can find a case where the verb "to have" was
interpreted so as to be negated by having dropped the item from the
hands onto the floor of a car.

It is interesting to note that you think that every time most people walk down the local high street they have a kitchen knife.

Insofar as the word simply means "own", than many people will have such
an item.

Nut that is not the term of art meaning of "have" in the context of a
motor vehicle's ignition key when one is found sitting in the vehicle
whilst over the blood alcohol limit.

Neither, to her credit (and very wisely), did the defendant seek to rely
upon the sort of advice she might have received had she only consulted
Crispin Legal Services (SE).

I couldn't possibly better the legal advice she seems to have had. Plead guilty and plead guilty at the earliest possible opportunity.

I simply dispute your claim:
=====Quote=====
The driver *had* the keys
=====/Quote=====

Clearly she didn't anymore than I *had* a kitchen knife last time I went through airport security.

She was a few inches from them. And she knew it.

I forgot - you're the learned Solomon.

What has judgment - of any sort - got to do with the simple and
unassailable fact that the defendant was in charge of a motor vehicle
(indeed, she admitted that some at least of her alcohol intake had taken
place in the motor vehicle) and was over the prescribed blood alcohol limit?

You won't find me disputing that.

There is nothing to judge: she was bang to rights.

Nor that.

If dropping the car keys into the footwell were a defence against the
charge of being drunk in charge, that would have come to the attention
of people like the famous Mr Loophole by now.

I never claimed it was a loophole.

And people like you would be howling with indignation.

Not at all. I simply dispute that she had the keys when asked for them...

....even though she had them.

I see.

On Tuesday, 23 February 2016 08:08:06 UTC, Alycidon wrote:
Didn't even have the keys and was asleep.

http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Drink...ail/story.html

He DID have the keys and has been sacked.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...olleagues.html

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 5:45:27 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 26/02/2016 17:41, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 4:28:38 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 26/02/2016 07:57, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 2:03:20 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 26/02/2016 00:27, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 1:38:38 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 25/02/2016 08:35, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 2:33:55 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 25/02/2016 00:14, Tom Crispin wrote:

On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 11:57:37 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 24/02/2016 23:36, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 11:23:24 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:

Right now, I don't know exactly where are the keys to any of the three
cars parked on the drive. I am in charge of two of them.
Does that mean I don't have the keys?

Put your hand in your pocket, if they are there, or somewhere else on your person, you have them. If not, you don't.

I have a collection of CDs (quite a lot of them).
They aren't in my pocket and AAMOF, I could never lift them all in one
go, not even in a very big box with handles.
Does that mean I don't have them?

Earlier today my wife asked me to open the car, I said, "I don't have the keys". I knew exactly where they were, but I didn't have them.

That's a turn of phrase.
Law and legal cases do not turn on such trifles.

Wrong - they can and do.
A recent (and important) high court collective enfranchisement case turned on the interpretation of the term "residential".
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2014/2433.html

Court cases frequently turn upon the meaning of words used in the law.

But let's see whether you can find a case where the verb "to have" was
interpreted so as to be negated by having dropped the item from the
hands onto the floor of a car.

It is interesting to note that you think that every time most people walk down the local high street they have a kitchen knife.

Insofar as the word simply means "own", than many people will have such
an item.

Nut that is not the term of art meaning of "have" in the context of a
motor vehicle's ignition key when one is found sitting in the vehicle
whilst over the blood alcohol limit.

Neither, to her credit (and very wisely), did the defendant seek to rely
upon the sort of advice she might have received had she only consulted
Crispin Legal Services (SE).

I couldn't possibly better the legal advice she seems to have had. Plead guilty and plead guilty at the earliest possible opportunity.

I simply dispute your claim:
=====Quote=====
The driver *had* the keys
=====/Quote=====

Clearly she didn't anymore than I *had* a kitchen knife last time I went through airport security.

She was a few inches from them. And she knew it.

I forgot - you're the learned Solomon.

What has judgment - of any sort - got to do with the simple and
unassailable fact that the defendant was in charge of a motor vehicle
(indeed, she admitted that some at least of her alcohol intake had taken
place in the motor vehicle) and was over the prescribed blood alcohol limit?

You won't find me disputing that.

There is nothing to judge: she was bang to rights.

Nor that.

If dropping the car keys into the footwell were a defence against the
charge of being drunk in charge, that would have come to the attention
of people like the famous Mr Loophole by now.

I never claimed it was a loophole.

And people like you would be howling with indignation.

Not at all. I simply dispute that she had the keys when asked for them...

...even though she had them.

Only in NugentWorld where most people passing through airport security have an arsenal of potential weapons.

I see.

On 26/02/2016 19:16, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 5:45:27 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 26/02/2016 17:41, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 4:28:38 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 26/02/2016 07:57, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 2:03:20 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 26/02/2016 00:27, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 1:38:38 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 25/02/2016 08:35, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 2:33:55 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 25/02/2016 00:14, Tom Crispin wrote:

On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 11:57:37 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 24/02/2016 23:36, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 11:23:24 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:

Right now, I don't know exactly where are the keys to any of the three
cars parked on the drive. I am in charge of two of them.
Does that mean I don't have the keys?

Put your hand in your pocket, if they are there, or somewhere else on your person, you have them. If not, you don't.

I have a collection of CDs (quite a lot of them).
They aren't in my pocket and AAMOF, I could never lift them all in one
go, not even in a very big box with handles.
Does that mean I don't have them?

Earlier today my wife asked me to open the car, I said, "I don't have the keys". I knew exactly where they were, but I didn't have them.

That's a turn of phrase.
Law and legal cases do not turn on such trifles.

Wrong - they can and do.
A recent (and important) high court collective enfranchisement case turned on the interpretation of the term "residential".
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2014/2433.html

Court cases frequently turn upon the meaning of words used in the law.

But let's see whether you can find a case where the verb "to have" was
interpreted so as to be negated by having dropped the item from the
hands onto the floor of a car.

It is interesting to note that you think that every time most people walk down the local high street they have a kitchen knife.

Insofar as the word simply means "own", than many people will have such
an item.

Nut that is not the term of art meaning of "have" in the context of a
motor vehicle's ignition key when one is found sitting in the vehicle
whilst over the blood alcohol limit.

Neither, to her credit (and very wisely), did the defendant seek to rely
upon the sort of advice she might have received had she only consulted
Crispin Legal Services (SE).

I couldn't possibly better the legal advice she seems to have had. Plead guilty and plead guilty at the earliest possible opportunity.

I simply dispute your claim:
=====Quote=====
The driver *had* the keys
=====/Quote=====

Clearly she didn't anymore than I *had* a kitchen knife last time I went through airport security.

She was a few inches from them. And she knew it.

I forgot - you're the learned Solomon.

What has judgment - of any sort - got to do with the simple and
unassailable fact that the defendant was in charge of a motor vehicle
(indeed, she admitted that some at least of her alcohol intake had taken
place in the motor vehicle) and was over the prescribed blood alcohol limit?

You won't find me disputing that.

There is nothing to judge: she was bang to rights.

Nor that.

If dropping the car keys into the footwell were a defence against the
charge of being drunk in charge, that would have come to the attention
of people like the famous Mr Loophole by now.

I never claimed it was a loophole.

And people like you would be howling with indignation.

Not at all. I simply dispute that she had the keys when asked for them...

...even though she had them.

Only in NugentWorld where most people passing through airport security have an arsenal of potential weapons.

You are desperate for a scored point and picked entirely the wrong
thread to try to score it.

"Have" here, in this case, where a drunk driver had merely dropped the
ignition key onto the floorwell, means both "possess" AND "have
immediately available".

Picking up the keys from the floor is not an impediment to driving. Had
she dropped them down the nearest drain before getting back into the
car, she might have got away with it (on the "unlikely to drive" defence).

On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 1:08:58 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 26/02/2016 19:16, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 5:45:27 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 26/02/2016 17:41, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 4:28:38 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 26/02/2016 07:57, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 2:03:20 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 26/02/2016 00:27, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 1:38:38 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 25/02/2016 08:35, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 2:33:55 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 25/02/2016 00:14, Tom Crispin wrote:

On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 11:57:37 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 24/02/2016 23:36, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 11:23:24 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:

Right now, I don't know exactly where are the keys to any of the three
cars parked on the drive. I am in charge of two of them.
Does that mean I don't have the keys?

Put your hand in your pocket, if they are there, or somewhere else on your person, you have them. If not, you don't.

I have a collection of CDs (quite a lot of them).
They aren't in my pocket and AAMOF, I could never lift them all in one
go, not even in a very big box with handles.
Does that mean I don't have them?

Earlier today my wife asked me to open the car, I said, "I don't have the keys". I knew exactly where they were, but I didn't have them.

That's a turn of phrase.
Law and legal cases do not turn on such trifles.

Wrong - they can and do.
A recent (and important) high court collective enfranchisement case turned on the interpretation of the term "residential".
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2014/2433.html

Court cases frequently turn upon the meaning of words used in the law.

But let's see whether you can find a case where the verb "to have" was
interpreted so as to be negated by having dropped the item from the
hands onto the floor of a car.

It is interesting to note that you think that every time most people walk down the local high street they have a kitchen knife.

Insofar as the word simply means "own", than many people will have such
an item.

Nut that is not the term of art meaning of "have" in the context of a
motor vehicle's ignition key when one is found sitting in the vehicle
whilst over the blood alcohol limit.

Neither, to her credit (and very wisely), did the defendant seek to rely
upon the sort of advice she might have received had she only consulted
Crispin Legal Services (SE).

I couldn't possibly better the legal advice she seems to have had. Plead guilty and plead guilty at the earliest possible opportunity.

I simply dispute your claim:
=====Quote=====
The driver *had* the keys
=====/Quote=====

Clearly she didn't anymore than I *had* a kitchen knife last time I went through airport security.

She was a few inches from them. And she knew it.

I forgot - you're the learned Solomon.

What has judgment - of any sort - got to do with the simple and
unassailable fact that the defendant was in charge of a motor vehicle
(indeed, she admitted that some at least of her alcohol intake had taken
place in the motor vehicle) and was over the prescribed blood alcohol limit?

You won't find me disputing that.

There is nothing to judge: she was bang to rights.

Nor that.

If dropping the car keys into the footwell were a defence against the
charge of being drunk in charge, that would have come to the attention
of people like the famous Mr Loophole by now.

I never claimed it was a loophole.

And people like you would be howling with indignation.

Not at all. I simply dispute that she had the keys when asked for them...

...even though she had them.

Only in NugentWorld where most people passing through airport security have an arsenal of potential weapons.

You are desperate for a scored point and picked entirely the wrong
thread to try to score it.

"Have" here, in this case, where a drunk driver had merely dropped the
ignition key onto the floorwell, means both "possess" AND "have
immediately available".

=====Quote=====
He asked her for the keys to the vehicle. She was unable to locate them and eventually found them on the floor of the foot well.
=====/Quote=====

So, if the policeman's evidence is correct, she didn't have them immediately available.

Picking up the keys from the floor is not an impediment to driving. Had
she dropped them down the nearest drain before getting back into the
car, she might have got away with it (on the "unlikely to drive" defence).

On Saturday, 27 February 2016 08:36:30 UTC, Tom Crispin wrote:

=====Quote=====
He asked her for the keys to the vehicle. She was unable to locate them and eventually found them on the floor of the foot well.
=====/Quote=====

So, if the policeman's evidence is correct, she didn't have them immediately available.

Exactly - so if I have had a few pints and the car is in the road, the police can do me for drunk in charge if my car key is in the rear conservatory and I am at the front door?

On 27/02/2016 08:36, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 1:08:58 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 26/02/2016 19:16, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 5:45:27 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 26/02/2016 17:41, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 4:28:38 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 26/02/2016 07:57, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 2:03:20 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 26/02/2016 00:27, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 1:38:38 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 25/02/2016 08:35, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 2:33:55 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 25/02/2016 00:14, Tom Crispin wrote:

On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 11:57:37 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 24/02/2016 23:36, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 11:23:24 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:

Right now, I don't know exactly where are the keys to any of the three
cars parked on the drive. I am in charge of two of them.
Does that mean I don't have the keys?

Put your hand in your pocket, if they are there, or somewhere else on your person, you have them. If not, you don't.

I have a collection of CDs (quite a lot of them).
They aren't in my pocket and AAMOF, I could never lift them all in one
go, not even in a very big box with handles.
Does that mean I don't have them?

Earlier today my wife asked me to open the car, I said, "I don't have the keys". I knew exactly where they were, but I didn't have them.

That's a turn of phrase.
Law and legal cases do not turn on such trifles.

Wrong - they can and do.
A recent (and important) high court collective enfranchisement case turned on the interpretation of the term "residential".
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2014/2433.html

Court cases frequently turn upon the meaning of words used in the law.

But let's see whether you can find a case where the verb "to have" was
interpreted so as to be negated by having dropped the item from the
hands onto the floor of a car.

It is interesting to note that you think that every time most people walk down the local high street they have a kitchen knife.

Insofar as the word simply means "own", than many people will have such
an item.

Nut that is not the term of art meaning of "have" in the context of a
motor vehicle's ignition key when one is found sitting in the vehicle
whilst over the blood alcohol limit.

Neither, to her credit (and very wisely), did the defendant seek to rely
upon the sort of advice she might have received had she only consulted
Crispin Legal Services (SE).

I couldn't possibly better the legal advice she seems to have had. Plead guilty and plead guilty at the earliest possible opportunity.

I simply dispute your claim:
=====Quote=====
The driver *had* the keys
=====/Quote=====

Clearly she didn't anymore than I *had* a kitchen knife last time I went through airport security.

She was a few inches from them. And she knew it.

I forgot - you're the learned Solomon.

What has judgment - of any sort - got to do with the simple and
unassailable fact that the defendant was in charge of a motor vehicle
(indeed, she admitted that some at least of her alcohol intake had taken
place in the motor vehicle) and was over the prescribed blood alcohol limit?

You won't find me disputing that.

There is nothing to judge: she was bang to rights.

Nor that.

If dropping the car keys into the footwell were a defence against the
charge of being drunk in charge, that would have come to the attention
of people like the famous Mr Loophole by now.

I never claimed it was a loophole.

And people like you would be howling with indignation.

Not at all. I simply dispute that she had the keys when asked for them...

...even though she had them.

Only in NugentWorld where most people passing through airport security have an arsenal of potential weapons.

You are desperate for a scored point and picked entirely the wrong
thread to try to score it.

"Have" here, in this case, where a drunk driver had merely dropped the
ignition key onto the floorwell, means both "possess" AND "have
immediately available".

=====Quote=====
He asked her for the keys to the vehicle. She was unable to locate them and eventually found them on the floor of the foot well.
=====/Quote=====

So, if the policeman's evidence is correct, she didn't have them immediately available.



On this point you are wrong.

Have you never watched any of the many Police reality shows? There are
loads where the crim swears that they do not have something and a quick
search brings the object into view, it is a standard tactic.