Speeding Prosecution

[TW]Fox;12686808 said:
It was their choice to chose a job which requires the use of a car.

The current situation is ridiculous, take two car enthusiasts. Both love their cars, both would be devastated by a ban. One works in an office, the other decided to take a job as a field engineer.
Click to expand...

The point is that they wont have the same effect on the end user. I dont need my car for work as i can easily bus it. So i got banned and bussed to work for a month.

If i did need my car for my job and lost my job, we've recieved different punishments, despite is both getting banned. One has had the minor inconvenience of getting up early for a few weeks and using pubic transport.

the other has lost his job and potentially cant pay the bills and has to live off jobseekers for a while. Same punishment in the sense of the law, but they punish the people in very different way.

This is why we have magistrates, to ensure the penalty effects different people the same.

chaparral said:
I wish are courts in guernsey were that easy on speeders..(I had 6 month ban plus £250 fine for doing 74 in a 35)
Anything over 15mph above the limit is a ban here
Click to expand...


thats a whole different kettle of fish. More than 25mph over the limit is magistrate territory. Given that its 40mph over the limit, but in a 30 zone, i would say without any doubt that most coppers would push for this to go before the court as dangerous driving. Which is minimum 6 months ban. The only reason myself and the other person didnt get put forward for dangerous driving is because it was a 70 limit. But even then, all it takes is for the copper to take the hump with you, and ask you be taken for dangerous driving at that speed, and they could quite easily do it. And Dangerous diving, is as i said earlier, minimum 6 months.

So the same.
 
Last edited:
So two shoplifters steal £1k of stuff each. One is on benefits, one is an office worker.

If they are both sentanced to 6 months in prison, one will lose his job, the other wont as he doesnt have one. Do you therefore let one escape prison for his crime whilst the other is jailed?

Of course not.

Need a license for work? Don't get banned then, duh.
 
[TW]Fox;12688345 said:
So two shoplifters steal £1k of stuff each. One is on benefits, one is an office worker.

If they are both sentanced to 6 months in prison, one will lose his job, the other wont as he doesnt have one. Do you therefore let one escape prison for his crime whilst the other is jailed?
Click to expand...

what exactly can you do with somebody who hasnt got a job, the problem here is that you cant punish them enough really ?

i would say that because theres sod all you can give him, he would go to jail because they've got no other way of punishing him. The one with the job however could be, as he will in turn have money and thus other ways of punishing him apart from jail.

its not dead certain they'd both go to jail.
 
MrLOL said:
Now, the grey area will come around the 40 mph over the limit mark, as this is the point the officer may request you be put before the court for consideration of the offence of dangerous driving.

Dangerous driving carries a long term ban of minimum 6 months. If they put you forward for speeding only
Click to expand...
I did get done for speed dangerous for my 74 in a 35 ...:(
 
I have been in almost the exact same situation as MrLOL (5mph less I think it was) and I received 6 points and fine instead of a ban.
I would have lost my job if given a ban of any duration, the bus from my rural village was not capable of getting me to work early enough or getting me home late enough. Taxi would have cost around £25-£30 each way, no train lines.

You might say it wasn't fair for him to be banned and me to be fined, but we both suffered. We both lost cash on the spot, we both paid increased insurance premiums following conviction. He was inconvenienced short term by having to make alternative travel arrangements, I was inconvenienced long term by having to keep my nose clean for 4 years.

People can go on all they like about how disgusting it is that people like me are not banned for exceeding 100mph, but at the end of the day they are not magistrates so their opinion counts for very little.
I presented my case to the magistrates, they decided on what THEY thought was the most suitable punishment - not me!
Only an imbecile would hope or want to get the most severe punishment available after breaking the law.
 
Lopéz said:
People can go on all they like about how disgusting it is that people like me are not banned for exceeding 100mph, but at the end of the day they are not magistrates so their opinion counts for very little.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately magistrates are nothing more than jumped up members of the public who think they are far more important than they actually are and have very little in the way of "knowledge" on any of the crimes they are supposed to be passing judgement on.

In fact "Joe Public's Opinion" although not law actually shows more about the "public's feeling" on such crime over some jumped up member of the public given too much power for extremely little in the way of training to weild that power.
 
Actually Stoofa that's fairly incorrect.

Whilst they are generally not legally trained like a judge or lawyer, they do get a lot of training in how to handle cases, and always have a "clerk" available/watching who can and will point out any legal points they have missed, or give advice on the legal side of things (basically the clerk is fully trained in the legal aspects).

They also have a rather hefty document that lays down the rules when it comes to imposing punishments (minimum, maximum, what factors to take into account), and when to pass it along to the crown court.
If a magistrate is found to have been acting outside of what is laid down in the book they can (and do) get reprimanded, or "asked" to stop being a magistrate (iirc one of the things the clerk does is make sure that any sentence is in accordance with the book and underlying law).

For most of the offences they deal with, they get far more experience with them than any of the higher courts, or many of the more legally trained types, and most of the cases they deal with aren't exactly legally that complicated (and the ones that are get passed up the chain).
 
Werewolf said:
Actually Stoofa that's fairly incorrect.
Click to expand...
Actually, it is largely correct in the majority - they are jumped up, arrogant and think themselves much more important than what they really are. This does not mean to say it affects their judgement, however.
 
Its quite simple really. If he has been summonsed for the offence of speeding then if you check out the sentencing guidelines they are as follows:

In you are in a 70pmh zone doing 101 – 110 the guideline is:- Disqualify 7 – 56 days OR 6 points with a band B fine (starting point of 100% of your relevant weekly income but can vary from 75% to 125%). Aggravating features will be whether indicating higher culpability, these are:
1. Poor road or weather conditions
2. LGV, HGV, PSV etc.
3. Towing caravan/trailer
4. Carrying passengers or heavy load
5. Driving for hire or reward
6. Evidence of unacceptable standard of driving over and
above speed
Factors indicating greater degree of harm
1. Location e.g. near school
2. High level of traffic or pedestrians in the vicinity

Obviously if these are not present you can focus on them in your mitigation.

As stated earlier there is a third reduction for an early guilty plea. i.e if the fine was 300 it will come down to 200 (if the magistrates imposed a fine at 100% assuming your sons income is 300p/w)

There are a couple of other considerations
1) How long has your son had his licence? If less that 2 years and in his probationary period he may prefer a short term ban rather than more points as his licence would be revoked under the New Drivers Provisions - he would go back to a provisional licence and have to do his test again.
2) If he gets 6 points he will then be on 9 and another endorseable offence within 3 years from the date of the first offence would mean a 6 month disqual for totting - a short term ban might be more desireable.

Finally if he is summonsed for dangers driving then the minimum disqual is 12 months with a mandatory extended retest. This offence is a lot more serious and I would think about getting a solicitor.
 
stoofa said:
In fact "Joe Public's Opinion" although not law actually shows more about the "public's feeling" on such crime over some jumped up member of the public given too much power for extremely little in the way of training to weild that power.
Click to expand...

Well luckily, laws are not enforced by the "public's feeling" in the UK, or we'd have people hanging from trees or burned at the stake for random crimes ;)
 
I know a couple of JP's and neither are jumped up 1's a nice plumber,
The courts are less likely to ban if the resulting ban causes hardship to innocent parties (he take his elderly mum to the the nursing home every week and no-one else can-- Something like that)

On a side note I think the law needs changing slightly for professional drivers If someone travels 20k per year and gets caught speeding once every 3 yrs/60k miles he will never get banned.

However like myself if using the same formula I would get caught speeding once every year and if it fell a couple of months early I would get banned for totting up.

I admit to speeding (not in the drive it like I've nicked it kinda way)however I NEVER speed in silly areas(schools hospitals etc.) but I have been caught by the safety camera partnership hiding behind a bush on the opposite side of a dual carriageway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom