Is this driving ban too harsh?

shrek2 · 20 Dec 2006 at 19:00

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/6197877.stm
4 years :eek:

The_Dark_Side · 20 Dec 2006 at 19:04

there must be other facotrs involved.
he's on a curfew as well....for speeding??
gotta be more to this than those few facts.

Muncher · 20 Dec 2006 at 19:04

Very stupid, the ban wasn't that harsh considering he was trying to outrun a police car and also admitted dangerous driving...

JohnS · 20 Dec 2006 at 19:06

I'm surprised he didn't get a custodial sentence TBH.

233 · 20 Dec 2006 at 19:08

he tried to lie about who was driving as well

shrek2 · 20 Dec 2006 at 19:10

JohnS said:
I'm surprised he didn't get a custodial sentence TBH.

A custidial sentence will simply be a waste of prison space tbh. I am sick and tired of more dangerous people being let out early to fit people like this in. I suppose he did actually lie and said someone else was driving.

PMKeates · 20 Dec 2006 at 19:16

Muncher said:
Very stupid, the ban wasn't that harsh considering he was trying to outrun a police car and also admitted dangerous driving...

I think unless there are other factors involved, curfewing the poor man to 9:00PM during the week is absolutely ridiculous!

JohnS · 20 Dec 2006 at 19:18

shrek2 said:
A custidial sentence will simply be a waste of prison space tbh. I am sick and tired of more dangerous people being let out early to fit people like this in. I suppose he did actually lie and said someone else was driving.

You're confusing the issues. If prisons are at capacity, that's a flaw Government policy. If someone's committed a crime, they've committed crime, pure and simple. But you can't say 'Ho hum, we'll let him off because our we were too shortsighted to anticipate year on year increased prison populations.' Direct your criticism at the real causes.

rare · 20 Dec 2006 at 19:19

As pointed out, its dangerous driving not just a case of speeding. Out running a police car that's chasing you notches up the seriousness factor just a little

PiKe · 20 Dec 2006 at 19:34

Handing down sentence Judge Paul Downes told Chapman: "Fortunately there was no other traffic on the road and no one was put in danger and there was no actual damage but there was potential danger."

So thats much like having matches without dynamite, there's a potential for danger in just about anything you do, fact is it was an empty road at silly o'clock probably.

Although I'm not condoning 147mph, if the roads were empty then wtf.

Lord-Jaffa · 20 Dec 2006 at 19:54

Should have banned him for life

Gaygle · 20 Dec 2006 at 19:56

Its probably what i would have given him (4 years, not life ban)

doofer · 20 Dec 2006 at 20:15

What's more dangerous, driving at 150MPH with no traffic, or driving at 70MPH in heavy traffic with a 10ft gap between you and the guy in front?

Hawk Tuah · 20 Dec 2006 at 20:49

doofer said:
What's more dangerous, driving at 150MPH with no traffic, or driving at 70MPH in heavy traffic with a 10ft gap between you and the guy in front?

Driving at 147 trying to get away from the cops is.

We have speeding, evading arrest and lying to the court. Those things add up.

However I'm quite sure there would be other factors. For all we know he was on parole with a suspended sentence, or has a long list of previous convictions, or other matters taken into account. Either way there are clear guidelines for sentences which magistrates have to follow. I'm sure the sentence is to the letter of the law.

I can look it up in the morning.

Gilly · 20 Dec 2006 at 20:56

There has to be more to it than meets the eye. I mean, a ban is worthy, and a fine is worthy, but 4 years and a suspended prison sentence and a curfew?

Seems comparatively harsh.

Vertigo · 20 Dec 2006 at 21:08

I think the point is that the penalty is more for legging it from the police than it is for the original speeding offence. Had he pulled over like most sane people would I'm sure the ban would have been vastly reduced.

Mr Jack · 20 Dec 2006 at 21:12

I think he was lucky. A mate of mine did jail time for something very similar*.

* - he used to ride his sportsbike at over 150mph pretty much everyday. Thing is, he never looked in his mirrors - there's not much point at those kind of speeds and thus didn't notice the copper trying to pull him over. The car couldn't keep up so they called a helicopter. First he knew about it was when he pulled up at work and they were telling him to keep his hands where they could see them over the loudhailer.

Muncher · 20 Dec 2006 at 21:19

Gilly said:
There has to be more to it than meets the eye. I mean, a ban is worthy, and a fine is worthy, but 4 years and a suspended prison sentence and a curfew?

Seems comparatively harsh.

How so Gilly?

147mph will get you a lengthy ban full stop, the fine was high as he has the means to may (the way the court sees it) the maximum fine is £1000, dangerous driving which he admitted carries a tariff of a maximum of 2 years imprisonment.

Perverting the course of justice (he probably wasn't charged with it but the court would take the circumstances into account), that carries a maximum tariff of life imprisonment.

Failing to stop is also an offence which contains a hefty tariff.

Prison would probably mean the loss of his job and his house. He can't drive for a while and will have a curfew for a short while but his counsel will be telling him he's a lucky boy not to be doing time.

Scarfacé · 20 Dec 2006 at 21:24

"also received a six-month prison sentence, suspended for a year"

Does that mean he gets Prison in a year, or what? :confused:

tonyyeb · 20 Dec 2006 at 21:29

Scarfacé said:
"also received a six-month prison sentence, suspended for a year"

Does that mean he gets Prison in a year, or what?

No it means he needs to be a good boy for a year otherwise he goes straight to jail for 6 months.

I agree with the sentence. I think more driving convictions should lead to stronger punishment.