Don't have to be drunk to get a ticket for sleeping in your Car anywhere in QLD. Apart from designated Camping and rest area's, or of course private property, sleeping in your Car is illegal in QLD. Evening yawning with the Engine runnning is considered Driving tired and is also illegal.
NEWS Joe Ofahengaue charged for alcohol related offence in a vehicle
- Thread starter I bleed Maroon
- Start date
Jason Simmons
State of Origin Rep
- Apr 18, 2013
- 5,103
- 8,123
Kooly87
NRL Captain
- Jun 2, 2017
- 4,271
- 7,367
Yeah I appreciate what you mean, that's what I was getting at but obviously used the incorrect language (driving) from a purely legal perspective.
Once your keys are in the ignition and turned on I'd agree you are definitely operating or are 'in charge' of the vehicle regardless of if you're actually driving anywhere.
- Sep 8, 2009
- 7,756
- 9,014
Driving tired? What is the offence for yawning?
Jason Simmons
State of Origin Rep
- Apr 18, 2013
- 5,103
- 8,123
There is no specific offence for yawning, nor for driving a car whilst ‘tired’. There are specific fatigue management related offences for long haul drivers and related logbooks and so forth, but they don’t apply to cars.
It is also not illegal to ‘sleep’ in your car and indeed there are innumerable rest areas where this is actually encouraged as driving tired is rightly recognised as dangerous.
It is illegal under Council and State Forest legislation, to camp in your vehicle in particular places, but pulling over for a snooze isn’t generally, unless it’s a no parking spot or some such.
The stuff people believe never ceases to amaze me...
abashii
NRL Player
- Jul 14, 2014
- 2,874
- 5,910
How much discretion do cops get in these circumstances? For someone who has technically been in charge of a vehicle but in reality has clearly not driven anywhere or had any intention to can they be given a warning?
I'd say the cops are in a bit of a catch 22 here. If they charge him they "overreacting" or the laws are stupid (that's open for debate), but if they don't charge him, and he attempts to drive home later, they are in a whole lot of bother, particularly if something bad happens later on. Adding to that the fact that Joe is a known sportsman in Brisbane, it's likely that something will come out later. They've got to charge the guy in this circumstance I'd say.
I've known, for I forget how many years, that you can't be in the drivers seat if you're drunk. I'm surprised that the Broncos players haven't been schooled on these laws. Particularly as he's not the first to have an issue with being charged for being over the limit.
I've known, for I forget how many years, that you can't be in the drivers seat if you're drunk. I'm surprised that the Broncos players haven't been schooled on these laws. Particularly as he's not the first to have an issue with being charged for being over the limit.
Jason Simmons
State of Origin Rep
- Apr 18, 2013
- 5,103
- 8,123
We always have the discretion to prosecute. We have to make a decision whether there is sufficient evidence that ‘could’ convict someone of an offence and secondly, that it is in the ‘public interest’ to do so.
So Offa is in his motor vehicle, he is 0.125% and the keys are in the ignition with the engine running. So there is clearly prima facie evidence of the offence.
Police arriving there have to decide basically whether it is in the public interest to prosecute him. There are competing interests at play. Is it in the public interest to prosecute and thereby deter drink driving? Of course. Few would argue that. What is Offa’s history like? We have heard about a few things publicly, but police will be checking his traffic and criminal history at the point of interception. Perhaps his traffic history isn’t exactly stellar or does he have a clean sheet, prior to this incident?
Has the offender made reasonable attempts to avoid committing the offence or has a timely withdrawal from the offence been conducted by the offender? Is the offence of such a minor or technical nature that perhaps an alternative method of dealing with it, such as a caution or warning, is more appropriate?
All of these things are weighed up, every time we type a bench charge sheet or write out a notice to appear, sometimes we do neither and caution someone, or perhaps ‘alcohol divert’ them to a safe place, meaning we consider it more of a health issue than a legal issue and we’re concerned that this person needs help rather than prosecution. It’s something we do all the time, but it rarely makes headlines.
So yes there are other options than necessarily charging a person, every situation is different and ‘quotas’ rarely if ever enter the equation contrary to some opinions. As a rough guide though, the higher the BAC reading and / or the more history a person has, the less likely a person is to be shown discretion in my experience.
Last edited:
Great answer
abashii
NRL Player
- Jul 14, 2014
- 2,874
- 5,910
Cheers mate, that's a really helpful explanation of what's going on behind the scenes.
- Mar 7, 2008
- 13,620
- 10,547
We always have the discretion to prosecute. We have to make a decision whether there is sufficient evidence that ‘could’ convict someone of an offence and secondly, that it is in the ‘public interest’ to do so.
So Offa is in his motor vehicle, he is 0.125% and the keys are in the ignition with the engine running. So there is clearly prima facie evidence of the offence.
Police arriving there have to decide basically whether it is in the public interest to prosecute him. There are competing interests at play. Is it in the public interest to prosecute and thereby deter drink driving? Of course. Few would argue that. What is Offa’s history like? We have heard about a few things publicly, but police will be checking his traffic and criminal history at the point of interception. Perhaps his traffic history isn’t exactly stellar or does he have a clean sheet, prior to this incident?
Has the offender made reasonable attempts to avoid committing the offence or has a timely withdrawal from the offence been conducted by the offender? Is the offence of such a minor or technical nature that perhaps an alternative method of dealing with it, such as a caution or warning, is more appropriate?
All of these things are weighed up, every time we type a bench charge sheet or write out a notice to appear, sometimes we do neither and caution someone, or perhaps ‘alcohol divert’ them to a safe place, meaning we consider it more of a health issue than a legal issue and we’re concerned that this person needs help rather than prosecution. It’s something we do all the time, but it rarely makes headlines.
So yes there are other options than necessarily charging a person, every situation is different and ‘quotas’ rarely if ever enter the equation contrary to some opinions. As a rough guide though, the higher the BAC reading and / or the more history a person has, the less likely a person is to be shown discretion in my experience.
[/QUOTE]
Not telling you what to do old mate but I'd advise you, were we friends, to not comment. I know you know your stuff but experience has taught me that if there's a fuckwit within your organization and they spot anything, absolutely anything that they can blow up into a serious matter, they surely will! This advice would just be a bloke looking out for an eager and well intentioned bloke.
Last edited:
- Sep 8, 2009
- 7,756
- 9,014
I was talking to a mate who is in the RPU about this discretion thing just recently. He was saying that for life threatening offences (?) I think was the term - offences such as speeding, drink driving, running red lights etc - there is little to no discretion. He also said this is especially the case now because they have body cameras which record from the moment they are turned on with buffered video before that. These cameras have to be turned on at all times when speaking to offenders.
So the old days of dropping speeds down or letting people off because they are good blokes are gone. He was saying, people who were only just over at an RBT test would have been waved on years ago but now it’s not worth his job and they all go in.
- Aug 25, 2018
- 18,420
- 31,716
And then you hear about someone being booked for "being in control of a vehicle" while sleeping.
The point I was making is QLD has fast turned into a nanny state. According to several websites, just google it, Sleeping in your car is illegal In Brisbane council areas. Maybe it's not generally enforced but still can land you a ticket. Driving fatigued you're right doesn't apply to private drivers I thought it did, but to all commercial drivers, bus drivers, driving instructors, taxi, uber etc.. i remember it being drummed into my head several years ago when i became an Uber driver. and yawning was one of the signs that could get you pulled over. The point is if a Cop wants to ping you for something these days it's not hard
Broncapz
NRL Captain
- May 1, 2016
- 3,113
- 7,328
Bigbucky
BRL Player
- Nov 24, 2019
- 73
- 137
Mate mine are getting longer every year!
- Mar 7, 2008
- 13,620
- 10,547
I discovered the supreme importance of drinking equal amounts of water with my alcohol. I cannot stress how beneficial it is. No, having a big drink before you go to sleep combined with a couple panadols doesn't even come close to matching the benefits of drinking water at the start and continuing to drink water throughout the session. Try it once and you'll never go back ESPECIALLY you older guys. For young guys it works well too with the big bonus being that when someone is choosing a friend to share breakfast with, the more sober guys usually get the chocolates.
Jason Simmons
State of Origin Rep
- Apr 18, 2013
- 5,103
- 8,123
Traffic matters policy in the QPS is dictated by the Traffic Manual. That bit of policy lists certain offences and states that those particular traffic offences are known as ‘life endangering offences’ and because of this seriousness, discretion should not be used for those offences.
However that policy only applies with respect to the two tiered test as I mentioned above AFTER, that two tiered test is satisfied, ie: we have to have what we believe is sufficient evidence to prosecute to a successful conclusion in court and that it satisfies the public interest test, which is that of a ‘reasonable person.’ Would a ‘reasonable person’ in that situation believe it necessary to prosecute? If so, then the Traffic Manual policy dictates no discretion for those specific offences and they are basically the ‘big five’ (speeding, drink/drug driving, seat belts, mobile phones and red lights / stop signs).
That two tiered test is imposed upon the QPS (and anyone else who wishes to prosecute someone criminally) in Qld by the Qld DPP, which is the authorised prosecution agency in Qld at law (though it’s powers to do so are delegated in many instances - police prosecutors, RSPCA Inspectors prosecutions and so on.) So while our policy says one thing, we prosecute whether by ticket, notice to appear, charging etc, ultimately only in the manner directed upon us, by the DPP.
Body worn cameras are an issue in many respects and not the panacea their proponents think they are in many instances, and I’ll make but one more observation, heeding @huge’s advice on such things. Many RPU officers are the sort of people who wouldn’t show discretion anyway, even if the policy allowed them too. If I had my way, they wouldn’t even be employed by the QPS, but rather TMR...
