A man accused of being in charge of a vehicle after consuming excess alcohol was today celebrating a human rights victory which could affect many other motorists.
In a case which split senior judges, Peter Sheldrake won a 2-1 majority High Court ruling that road traffic laws which led to his conviction were "disproportionate" and "violated the presumption of innocence" to which he was entitled under Article 6 (2) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The police had found Mr Sheldrake, a maintenance fitter, asleep in his van with the doors locked on the evening of February 9, 2001, in the Fiveways store car park in Stanway, near Colchester.
Mr Sheldrake, of Hatfield Peverel, near Chelmsford, was found guilty of being "in charge" after local magistrates decided he had failed in his legal obligation under Section Five of the 1988 Road Traffic Act to convince them that he had no intention of driving his van while over the limit.
But, in a ruling which prosecutors fear marks a setback in the battle against drinking and driving, the High Court majority ruled the burden of proof contained in Section Five was contrary to the human rights convention.
Mr Sheldrake's appeal was allowed by Lord Justice Clarke and Mr Justice Jack, with Mr Justice Henriques dissenting.
Lord Justice Clarke said imposing the reverse burden of proof in his case "violates the presumption of innocence because it enables an accused to be convicted, even though the court is not sure that there is a likelihood or risk of his driving".
A breath test revealed Mr Sheldrake was well over the limit, with 144mcg of alcohol in 100ml of breath.
In July, 2001, local magistrates ordered him to serve 160 hours community service, his licence was endorsed with ten penalty points and he was ordered to pay legal costs of £395.
His first appeal to the High Court ended with two judges disagreeing and a rehearing was ordered before a three-judge court.
A spokesman for Essex Police said the force would continue to enforce the drunk-in-charge law that placed the burden of proof on the defendant.
Published Tuesday, February 25, 2003
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article