Don't know if this is the right area for this so mods please move if required. Just thought it was an interesting case. This is from this mornings HS, personally I don't have a huge problem with the outcome of this. It doesn't mention that he had actually driven any distance at all, just that he may have been going to before passing out and being found. Wondering what others think A MAN nabbed asleep at the wheel of his car with the engine running and more than five times the legal alcohol limit has beaten a drink-drive conviction after a judge ruled it hadn't been proven he was in charge of the vehicle. Sean Halley was found slumped over the wheel of his Holden on Huntingdale Rd, Huntingdale, in January last year by Sgt Mark Kershaw. Sgt Kershaw had to knock on the car window several times and it took more than seven minutes for Halley to sit up and open the door. He was taken to Oakleigh police station where he returned a blood alcohol reading of .266, more than five times the legal limit. He was convicted at the Moorabbin Magistrates Court last October, fined $500 and lost his licence for two years. But Supreme Court Justice Stephen Kaye last week quashed the decision, ruling the magistrate had erred because it had not been established Halley was in charge of the vehicle. Justice Kaye also refused Sgt Kershaw's bid to have the matter reheard, which means Halley is free to drive and will not be punished. "(The) evidence would be entirely inadequate to entitle a court to conclude, beyond reasonable doubt, that the informant believed, on reasonable grounds, that (Halley) was intending to drive the vehicle." Barrister Michael Kuzilny, a lawyer who specialises in drink-drive cases, said the community would be disappointed Halley got off. "He gets a lawyer, who argues the points of law were not correctly applied and he gets off. It just shows you that the law is an imperfect science, and many people must wonder how silly our legal system really is," Mr Kuzilny said "There is no doubt this person presented a great danger to innocent road users, families and children in the vicinity. "The judge in this case believed that the presiding magistrate did not apply the right principles of law when coming to his final conclusion. This person could have driven and killed someone, or the car could have rolled and caused serious injury. Even if the car did not move at all, the law is quite clear, we cannot be drunk and in charge of a motor vehicle."