Given the size of the sentence, the OP's friend should be grateful he didn't end up at Her Majesty's pleasure - it was certainly on the cusp it would seem.

Looking at the other thread, it appears the OP didn't even try to mitigate the sentence - it's possible to plead guilty to DD, securing the 1/3 discount, whilst still disputing the facts of the case. That's called a "Newton" hearing. And certainly in this situation where the CPS have almost certainly alleged that there was some racing going on, it would have been a sensible thing to do.

I think people are forgetting here that alot of what happens is a bit beyond the rest of us.

When I was summond to court because of rear ending a vehicle turning right, I only knew about about the case 2 days before the hearing because they had cocked up my address. I was informed to send te paperwork back ASAP. This was stated from someone working for Warks county council, because you couldn't talk directly to the court in Rugby ....... but it was to late for me to get time off to be in court that day anyway.

I had no idea what to do, and becuase I had no idea it was even going to court no idea what to do about a defence. I therfore pleaded guilty because I did cause the accident and then almost got convicted (after I had been found guilty in absent) for not paying the fine because they still were sending everything to the wrong address.

I really was brought up to play the game fairly and in return you would be fairly treated. Reading the above posts, it seems if your dishonest and play the system you win. Naive I am then, I just expected more from our legal system.

I also agree with the above poster ref a good bking for these lads. Rightly or wrongly they did not expect the consequences were going to be so harsh, they seem a decent pair of guys otherwise and they are young. Many of us did silly things when we were younger and a stiff talking too by a copper mean't it usually didn't happen again.

It really suprises me that some on this thread think the lads should have realised there fate was going to be so severe, I was gobsmacked at their sentence.

You make valid points, but most of us would (I hope) realise the severity of being charged with Dangerous Driving. I note in particular from the account on PePiPoo that they were informed of the intention to prosecute them for this offence in the initial NIP, before they had even gone for an interview. It's not like they turned up to court thinking they were going to get a slap on the wrists and found out they were up for DD, they knew at the outset.

Totally agree that honesty has been punished here, but their honest account is that they drove the wrong side of a kerbed roundabout, in convoy, and then proceeded at speed. Your average bystander would most likely have perceived this as two people racing eachother on the road, as I'm sure the off-duty cops statement said as such.

I'm curious as to what sort of punishment you would expect to be fair for this sort of behaviour. The fact they did not hit anyone else is not relevant within the context of where it took place (a public road), otherwise anyone could plead mitigating circumstances like that retrospectively.

It could've been a "moment of madness", it could equally have been an occasion where they just happened to get caught. For all any of us know they drive like this on a regular basis. Maybe they don't. Fortunately that is why the Law is dispassionate and judges people based on the evidence of a single offence, and in cases where it is egregiously beyond the driving standard expected - it is punished heavily.

The only point I really agree with is that they should've sought representation, or at the very least made some kind of statement to the courts that it was "an isolated moment of madness", "clean licence", etc. It sounds like they just turned up and said nothing and hoped the Mags would act upon anything other than the evidence presented before them. In the face of being told, by a qualified and inherently trusted (the off duty cop) party, that "these two cars were racing eachother and crossed a kerbed roundabout on the wrong side", it's no surprise really what the verdict was. I must stress again that turning up to court having pleaded guilty to DD they were going to get a 12 months ban at least.

The whole thing sounds fair enough, to me.

Two lads do something silly, they admit to doing something silly, the court punishes them for doing something silly and now they're far less likely to do something silly again.

If only more people pleaded guilty when they really are.

It is. It is also an aggravating factor in sentencing for DD.

It's tough to argue that intentionally driving the wrong way around a roundabout could be construed as anything other than dangerous to be honest. It is not careless nor is it "driving without due care".

That said a decent solicitor might've been able to kick up enough fuss to get it busted down to Careless or DWDCA (imo DWDCA would be a miracle) bearing in mind the only evidence the CPS originally had was the off-duty officers statement.

They weren't stopped at the time so it may have even been argued that failing to nominate the driver on the initial NIP, which would ultimately have resulted in 6 points for S172 Failure to Furnish offence, would have been a "desireable" outcome under the circumstances.

The problem really is of expectations. People get an early guilty plea discount on a fine, and admitting guilt would reflect in the sentencing of some crimes, but pleading guilty to Dangerous Driving is always going to result in a disqualification of at least a year regardless of anything you say in court.

Whilst I'm not as tinfoil-hat wearing as some people, wilfully attending an interview in which you aren't already familiar with the process is asking for trouble. A more astute person might've realised as soon as they were "arrested" (I suspect they were cautioned and therefore anything said would be admissable rather than arrested) that they were in deep trouble and requested a solicitor there and then.

The reality of this specific case is that the CPS had very little in the way of conclusive evidence to begin with, and being honest has cost them dearly. I guess your perspective on this depends on whether you believe people should be accountable for their crimes. I applaud their honesty, and I'm not at all surprised by the verdict, but that's the way the Law works. It isn't sympathetic beyond the point which you are already recognised for pleading guilty early. Ultimately admitting guilt to a very serious driving offence = serious punishment. I suspect their clean driving record was the only thing that avoided a custodial sentence.

thread currently running on Pepipoo which I think is the guy that got the punishment....

20 month ban - extended re-test
175 hours community service
£85 court costs

seems fair to me seeing as they admitted driving dangerously, the range for that offence does contain 'clink' time (would have been harsh to spend some time at her maj's service!)

This is where you'd be wrong. I know people who have twoc'd cars pissed, crashed and made a getaway. They got less than that.

As mentioned before on here OP a friend of mine pleaded guilty to dangerous driving for sliding around an empty car park on Mcdonalds trays. 18month ban, 150hrs community and fine. In his scenario nobody was injured (or even close) it lasted 2minutes and he never got over 15mph. The punishment was justifyed in PHs opinion. Which is fair enough, but ffs can the stupid who TWOC'd his GFs car, crashed into another car and made a getaway whilst pissed please get more than 12month ban with 100hrs community service?

I don't know the exact details. I do know he was drunk, crashed, fled, wasn't his car, he didn't have a full licence and no insurance.

You must have seen one of the Police reality TV shows? At the end it tells you the punishment, very very rarely is it fitting.

the problem is that the defendant is shown the video as part of pre trial disclosure and pleads guilty. The court then doesn't get to see the video and must rely on whatever bits the prosecutor chooses to read out from the file. Thats always supposing the CPS use an appropriate charge and don't take the easy option of undercharging to ensure a quick guilty plea.