Serial offending by disqualified drivers

[icowden]

A car is very much a kinetic weapon in the wrong hands, say, under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

I disagree. Using something for which it was not designed and causing injury or death unintentionally doesn't make a thing a weapon. A car can be used as a weapon - e.g. by terrorists, but that is not what it is designed for. Otherwise everything is a weapon. This keyboard, my lunch, the rosebush in the garden.
If we are going to call everything a weapon then there is no point in having the word.

 

[hatler]

But the net result of the person on the receiving end of either the 'weapon used as a weapon' and the 'non-weapon used dangerously' is the same.

Certainly the end result is equally predictable in either case.

Getting in a car pissed, and driving so stupidly you turn it over, indicates to me that it is only luck that no-one else was killed.

This needs a significant driving ban, contempt of court proceedings if she transgresses again, and confiscation of the vehicle (to be sold).

There's no point putting her away, that wouldn't help things.

 

[matticus]

There's no point putting her away, that wouldn't help things.

Is this because there are no Traffic Police in jails??

 

[CanucksTraveller]

This needs a significant driving ban, contempt of court proceedings if she transgresses again

I'm not sure if you're aware but she's on her 6th ban currently, the one she'll be given for this transgression will be her 7th. And during most (if not all AFAIK) of them she's been caught driving. So yes, contempt of court should be a given, but of course the usual punishment contempt of court IS a custodial sentence.

confiscation of the vehicle (to be sold)

In this case it wasn't her car, it was her partner's. So that's a punishment for him, not her. And they own loads of cars between them, so no punishment for her at all.

There's no point putting her away.

But at some point, you have to recognise that the current merry go round of being banned and disregarding the ban isn't working. So what other option does the legal system have? I'd suggest a custodial is appropriate in these circumstances. This ain't her first rodeo.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

Crushing or confiscating the car does have a problem if the car is leased - just like when those nice High COurt Enforcement people try to take a debtor's car.

Which is a problem - but in my opinion that should be looked at. Maybe in this case the car could be taken but given back to the lease company - but the culprit then has to compensate the company for loss of income - or something
And - they should be blacklisted from leasing a car etc - but then if their license has been blocked then presumably this would happen anyway and the actual lease holder would be someone else - more fool them for letting a banned driver drive their car!

 

[matticus]

But at some point, you have to recognise that the current merry go round of being banned and disregarding the ban isn't working.

It's like a mirror held upto this thread

;-)

 

[Pale Rider]

In theory, an exceptional hardship argument cannot be used more than once every two years.

The problem is recording, there's often no formal record of the argument being used, so a defendant can get away with repeated use, particularly if he is summonsed to a different magistrates' court.

The same applies to the various speed awareness/road safety courses.

While Price was 'remanded', that was only overnight to the court hearing her case the next day.

She was bailed pending sentence, partly for the preparation of social inquiry reports, and partly to allow her time to seek treatment for her addictions.

Makes some sense, if there could be any confidence she would abide by the interim driving ban.

Very hard for the magistrate to resist the defence application about seeking treatment, although the chairwoman did tell Price, accurately, 'we often lock up those who drive while disqualified'.

Chances are come the evil day she will avoid custody, if she can come up with some positive reports from the Probation Service and the quacks at the Priory.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

In theory, an exceptional hardship argument cannot be used more than once every two years.

I believe it's limited to not being able to use the same exceptional hardship grounds more than once every three years. From memory that Guy Martin managed to do it with separate grounds within a short period.

 

[Pale Rider]

I believe it's limited to not being able to use the same exceptional hardship grounds more than once every three years. From memory that Guy Martin managed to do it with separate grounds within a short period.

That does a ring a bell.

Inventing a materially different hardship argument within a short period was a good effort.

As we've seen with fuel, you can never over estimate the determination of the average motorist to keep driving.

Perjury is committed without a second thought if it means there's a chance of keeping that all important licence.

 

[DaveReading]

While Price was 'remanded', that was only overnight to the court hearing her case the next day.

Presumably meaning remanded in custody, rather than remanded on bail.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

That does a ring a bell.

Inventing a materially different hardship argument within a short period was a good effort.

As we've seen with fuel, you can never over estimate the determination of the average motorist to keep driving.

Perjury is committed without a second thought if it means there's a chance of keeping that all important licence.

His testimonial is no longer live on the lawyer's website but it's been archived. He had used exceptional hardship twice inside 18 months and this reads like he may have succeeded a third time.

 

[Pale Rider]

Presumably meaning remanded in custody, rather than remanded on bail.

Charged at the police station, kept locked up overnight (almost certainly), then produced at court the next morning where she was released on bail.

Some defendants in her position would be charged in the morning, kept in custody, and produced at court for the afternoon list, thereby spending only a few daylight hours locked up.

That's purely an administrative matter, the coppers' admin ring the court and the clerk decides whether to accept the case or not.

That decision depends on how busy he is, if a CPS prosecutor is still hanging around to do the case, whether there's a panel of magistrates able to take it, and whether the duty solicitor is still there to defend it.

Practically, the duty solicitor often likes to get a flyer, so will ask the clerk at about 3pm if he is going to accept any more cases, hoping the answer will be 'no'.

 

[Pale Rider]

His testimonial is no longer live on the lawyer's website but it's been archived. He had used exceptional hardship twice inside 18 months and this reads like he may have succeeded a third time.

View attachment 611541

It does read like he's managed three successful hook wrigglings in under two years.

The fact that he's proud of that shows the average 'pistonhead' sees motoring law as nothing more than an obstacle to get around.

No conception whatsoever of why the speed limit was there in the first place.

 

[Drago]

It's not about leniency - I could kill people with a £50 car, or a hire-car. Seizing (or crushing) those would be no punishment of note!

I don't think seizing shotguns (or licences) stops people having shotguns - it's just a brief inconvenience. We've seen from the Price example and MANY others that bans don't prevent lethal driving - and the unintended consequences might actually be worse.

I'll repeat - I am totally behind firmer punishments; let's just do something useful and logical, not knee-jerk "take their toys away!" responses.

Its not about knee jerk - its about punishment. Watching their car being crushed will have a sobering effect.

And just because a criminal may, with some effort or expense, may be able to circumvent such a move by obtaining another is no excuse not to try.

We don't return knives to criminals, and all they need to do is walk to the nearest kitchen drawer to obtain another for free, so your argument doesn't reflect that which the police already do with other types of potential weapon. Extend it to all types of weapons or items that present a risk to public safety.

Just because a determined criminal may be able to get another does not mean we should not try to make life difficult for them,both by way of a punishment in itself and to reduce the opportunity for casual, spur of the moment reoffending of the type that Price has just admitted to.