Tuam man found asleep in car avoids drunk driving rap

A TUAM man found asleep in his car in a garage forecourt and who was so unsteady on his feet that a Garda had to assist him to stand when questioning him, escaped a conviction when his defence pointed out that he had been summoned to appear before Tuam District Court under the wrong charge. Michael Silke, Woodquay, Weir Road, Tuam was charged with drunk driving on September 3 last. [private] However, his defence solicitor, Gearoid Geraghty, argued that his client had been found asleep in his car at the Texaco garage on Galway Road, Tuam, so he should have been charged with being drunk in charge of the vehicle and not being drunk while driving it. Garda Kinneen told the Court that in response to a call he and a colleague went to the Texaco station and found Silke asleep in the front passenger seat of his car. The key was still in the ignition and when he roused him he got a strong smell of drink. When Silke was outside the car he had to be helped stand up. He admitted he had been drinking. The defendant was arrested and taken to Tuam Garda Station where a breath sample showed an intoxalyser reading of 93mg of alcohol per 100ml of breath. Gearoid Geraghty asked Garda Kinneen if it was clear his client was intoxicated. He said it was.  He then asked if he considered his client was in control of the car, even thought he was asleep. The Garda said he did. 'When was the last time you arrested someone who was asleep and driving a car,' the defence inquired. Garda Kinneen said he didn't think he ever had. Mr Geraghty said it was not reasonable to claim that a person who is asleep could be in control of a car. Garda Kinneen said in his opinion, Silke was. The defence then asked where was the evidence that his client had actually driven the car. It was up to the prosecution to prove he drove and drove within three hours of providing a breath sample for analysis. He argued that although his client admitted he had driven from Galway that day, he had said he left Galway at 2 pm and he was arrested after 8 pm. His client gave his sample at 9.32pm so the prosecution needed evidence Silke had been driving between 6.32 pm and that time. No such evidence was before the Court. Judge Browne said the prosecution had charged the defendant under the wrong section of the Road Traffic Act. He should have been charged with being in charge of a vehicle, not driving it. 'With reluctance, I have no choice but to dismiss, much and all as I'd like to convict,' he said. [/private]