Did you ever wonder if you have what it takes to be a judge?  I know you have probably seen a lot of judges on television and think that you can probably do as well or even better than they do.  Real life however is often much more complicated than any television show.  Real life cases can often be more bizarre than those thought up by TV writers.

To make things even more difficult a judge’s job is twofold.  In the first place a judge must decide what the facts really are.  A judge is often presented with at least two versions of the  same story and each side will often believe that they are telling the truth.  Memory, does play tricks and sometimes people’s memory of events are coloured by what they want to believe really happened.  It is up to a judge to decide what the true story was or at least what it was likely to have been.

In the second-place a judge must interpret the laws that were passed by legislators and try and figure out what the words on paper really mean when applied to real life.  This can often be more complicated than it sounds and today you’ll be given the chance to test yourself and to see how you stack up against real judges in real cases.

The drinking and driving laws in the criminal code, contain a curious passage.  You are deemed to be guilty of most drinking and driving offenses if you had “care and control” of a motor vehicle while impaired or too drunk to drive.

There have been countless decisions in many court cases where judges have been called upon to decide what exactly the words “care and control” really means in real life.  In each of the following cases you decide whether the accused had care and control of his motor vehicle at the time of his arrest.

1) The police observed the accused’s vehicle parked with his engine running, a signal light flashing, and music playing.  He appeared to be asleep or passed out.  He had given his car keys to a friend who was supposed to drive him home. Although his friend did begin to drive him home , the friend pulled over a few blocks before the accused’s house in or to give another motorist  a boost from the vehicle’s battery.  The friend exited the vehicle but said that he be back in a few minutes, at which time the accused moved from the passenger seat into the driver’s seat and fell asleep.  The accused had testified that he felt he had to get behind in the wheel  until the friend returned to so that no one would get in and drive away with the car. The accused testified that he had no intention of actually driving the car in his intoxicated state.  Nonetheless he was charged with having care and control of a motor vehicle while being too drunk to drive.  Was he found guilty?

2) The accused left a hotel bar after approximately two hours of solid drinking.  His ability to drive was seriously impaired by alcohol.  While leaving the bar he noticed a parked police cruiser a few car lengths away from his car.  Since he did not want to get caught drinking and driving he got into his car and sat in the driver seat without starting the car. About ten minutes later a police officer approached the car and found the accused was sitting in the driver’s seat with his seat belt fastened and the car keys on the floor in front of the driver seat.  He was charged with having care and control of a motor vehicle while being too drunk to drive. Was he found guilty?

3) The accused was found in the front seat of his car drunk as a skunk.  The motor was running and the car lights were on.  It was well after midnight.  In his defence the accused claimed that the only reason that he was in his car was to call a taxi from his car phone.  His car phone was of the old fixed variety and would only function if the car engine was running.  He claimed that he had no intention of driving the car home and was only calling for a taxi.  He was charged with having care and control of a motor vehicle while being too drunk to drive.  Was he found guilty?

Answers:

1) The court decided that this driver really had no intention to put the vehicle in motion and therefore did not really have “care and control” of a car while being drunk.  Although he could have driven the car the court believed that he would not have.  He was found not guilty and acquitted.

2) The court was of the opinion that the only reason that the driver did not put the car in motion was because he was afraid of being arrested.  Since he was fully capable of taking the keys  from floor and inserting them into the ignition and driving away the court decided that he was guilty as charged.

3) The court felt that although the car was running and the accused was in the driver seat he really had no intention of driving away.  The court believed that the only reason that he was in that seat was to call a taxi.  He was found not guilty of having care and control of a motor vehicle while being too intoxicated to drive.
Have a happy new year and please don't drink and drive.