Drunk 'in charge' law is overturned

Hundreds of drink-drivers are expected to go back to court to have convictions overturned after judges ruled yesterday that part of road traffic legislation violates the Human Rights Act.

The case is the latest in which judges have overturned parliament. Last week, David Blunkett reacted angrily when the High Court said his plans to stop asylum-seekers claiming benefits were unfair.

Yesterday the Court of Appeal ruled that a driver who was asleep in his van while above the legal driving limit should have his conviction quashed. Peter Sheldrake admitted being over the limit but said he had no intention of driving. Under Section 5 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act it was up to Mr Sheldrake to prove there was no likelihood of him driving his van.

But yesterday the Court of Appeal said that was too high a burden of proof to impose on a defendant. The judges, in a 2-1 decision, ruled the road traffic laws which led to Mr Sheldrake's conviction were "disproportionate" and "violated the presumption of innocence" to which he was entitled under the European Convention on Human Rights. The appeal was allowed by Lord Justice Clarke and Mr Justice Jack, with Mr Justice Henriques dissenting.

After the ruling John Wadham of the human rights organisation, Liberty, said any driver convicted in similar circumstances since the Human Rights Act came into force in October 2000 would able to use the case to challenge their own conviction.

The Crown Prosecution Service said they would seek permission to take the case to the House of Lords.