Driving disqualifications to start after release from prison
Discussion
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2896049/Ki...
Yes, sorry it's the Daily Mail, but it's always seemed daft to me that someone can receive a substantial gaol sentence and a disqualification and the disqualification starts immediately - effectively allowing the convicted driver to serve part or all of their disqualification whilst they're locked up and unable to drive anyway.
Seems like a sensible decision. I just wonder why they've allowed this loophole to exist for so long when the minister says he is going to use existing powers to deal with it and the changes will be in place within weeks.
Yes, sorry it's the Daily Mail, but it's always seemed daft to me that someone can receive a substantial gaol sentence and a disqualification and the disqualification starts immediately - effectively allowing the convicted driver to serve part or all of their disqualification whilst they're locked up and unable to drive anyway.
Seems like a sensible decision. I just wonder why they've allowed this loophole to exist for so long when the minister says he is going to use existing powers to deal with it and the changes will be in place within weeks.
It's not exactly rocket science though is it? The removal of paper licence counterparts and the subsequent changes in the way licence endorsements are recorded will probably help.
Or just use prison release licences. If you are released early from a prison sentence, you are released on licence, which can contain certain conditions. Make it a condition that you cannot drive whilst out on licence, then the disqualification starts at the end of your actual sentence.
If you drive whilst still under licence, you run the risk of being immediately recalled to prison to serve the rest of your sentence.
Maybe I'm being too simplistic - as per usual, the Daily Mail article is short on detail and long on rhetoric.
Or just use prison release licences. If you are released early from a prison sentence, you are released on licence, which can contain certain conditions. Make it a condition that you cannot drive whilst out on licence, then the disqualification starts at the end of your actual sentence.
If you drive whilst still under licence, you run the risk of being immediately recalled to prison to serve the rest of your sentence.
Maybe I'm being too simplistic - as per usual, the Daily Mail article is short on detail and long on rhetoric.
Ok, so I've read schedule 16 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 and the Sentencing Guidelines Council's guidance for sentencing on conviction for causing death by careless driving, and I've come to the following conclusions:
1. The Government have made an announcement about a change to legislation which was made nearly 6 years ago, but which they have inexplicably dragged their feet over enacting until now.
2. The Daily Mail have comprehensively misrepresented the Government's announcement and reported it in a very misleading and almost completely false manner.
No surprises whatsoever then.
As you were.
1. The Government have made an announcement about a change to legislation which was made nearly 6 years ago, but which they have inexplicably dragged their feet over enacting until now.
2. The Daily Mail have comprehensively misrepresented the Government's announcement and reported it in a very misleading and almost completely false manner.
No surprises whatsoever then.
As you were.
R_U_LOCAL said:
Ok, so I've read schedule 16 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 and the Sentencing Guidelines Council's guidance for sentencing on conviction for causing death by careless driving, and I've come to the following conclusions:
1. The Government have made an announcement about a change to legislation which was made nearly 6 years ago, but which they have inexplicably dragged their feet over enacting until now.
2. The Daily Mail have comprehensively misrepresented the Government's announcement and reported it in a very misleading and almost completely false manner.
No surprises whatsoever then.
As you were.
Update - section 35A Road Traffic Act 1988 / schedule 16 comes into force 13th April 2015.1. The Government have made an announcement about a change to legislation which was made nearly 6 years ago, but which they have inexplicably dragged their feet over enacting until now.
2. The Daily Mail have comprehensively misrepresented the Government's announcement and reported it in a very misleading and almost completely false manner.
No surprises whatsoever then.
As you were.
jith said:
The problem I see with this is that someone who is genuinely attempting to get back on their feet after being released is denied access to any job that involves driving, making it even more difficult to find employment. The punishment then takes the shape of a double edge sword.
J
If you've done something bad enough to warrant a ban AND jail, then I don't want you getting a job that involves driving for a good long while. J
Why ban people and also send them to prison, why not give them an extra 2 months in prison and no ban.
I thought the UK was all about reform, so why take a way someones driving licence so they can not work when they get out. Just make them do extra time.
I would agree with a ban for open prisons as above.
I thought the UK was all about reform, so why take a way someones driving licence so they can not work when they get out. Just make them do extra time.
I would agree with a ban for open prisons as above.
Starfighter said:
Easy - Sentence is 6 month in prison and a 12 month ban - The ban ends in 18 months.
The point that many miss is that the offender is released early after 3 months served but the the sentence is still 6 months.
The new provisions would see an extension period of 3 months in your example. So, 3+12, not 6+12. Slightly less if any remand days are taken into account.The point that many miss is that the offender is released early after 3 months served but the the sentence is still 6 months.
Question for someone cleverer than me (agtlaw?).
In England and Wales the reduction in sentence an offender gets for a pleading guilty doesn't apply to the points/ban. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that this is because the endorsement/ban has always been viewed by the courts as an ancillary order rather than as part of the punishment for the offence (though of course many motorists would see a ban as more of a punishment than the fine).
However I notice that the new law requires the court to consider "the diminished effect of disqualification as a distinct punishment if the person who is disqualified is also detained in pursuance of a custodial sentence."
If Parliament has signalled that it wants the ban to be treated a distinct punishment, does that mean that bans (and by extension, possibly points as well) should now be subject to a reduction for a guilty plea - as they already are in Scotland? Law of unintended consequences?
In England and Wales the reduction in sentence an offender gets for a pleading guilty doesn't apply to the points/ban. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that this is because the endorsement/ban has always been viewed by the courts as an ancillary order rather than as part of the punishment for the offence (though of course many motorists would see a ban as more of a punishment than the fine).
However I notice that the new law requires the court to consider "the diminished effect of disqualification as a distinct punishment if the person who is disqualified is also detained in pursuance of a custodial sentence."
If Parliament has signalled that it wants the ban to be treated a distinct punishment, does that mean that bans (and by extension, possibly points as well) should now be subject to a reduction for a guilty plea - as they already are in Scotland? Law of unintended consequences?
The SGC (Causing Death by Driving - Definitive Guideline) said this:
"Although disqualifying an offender from driving may be regarded as punitive, the primary purpose of the disqualification is to protect the public from future risk."
The CACD agreed with this in Cooksley (2003) and also said:
"Disqualification is designed to protect road users in the future from an offender who had shown himself to be a real risk on the roads."
Adding this:
"We do not agree that the length of the ban should be tailored to take into account the anticipated date of early release of the offender. On the other hand we accept that to extend the ban for a substantial period after release can be counter-productive particularly if it is imposed on an offender who is obsessed with cars or who requires a driving licence to earn his or her living because it may tempt the offender to drive while disqualified."
More recently from the Court of Appeal:
Geale (2009) Risk to the public is not the only relevant criterion for the assessment of length of the disqualification period. In addition, there is or may be an element of punishment. As is apparent from the fact that, even where the future risk is nil, the statutory provisions require a 12 month minimum period of disqualification.
Hussain (2009) - Disqualification is "forward looking and preventative rather than backward looking and punitive ... It is designed to protect road users in future."
Backhouse (2010) - "An order of disqualification has the purpose of protecting the public. Disqualification is also intended to punish and deter offenders and others. A balance, however, has to be struck and the court should not disqualify for a period which is longer than necessary and should bear in mind the effect of a ban on employment or employment prospects."
Penson (2014) - "While the primary purpose of disqualification may be prevention it also has a punitive purpose and should be seen as part of the total sentence."
Agreed that all of the above and the new legislation raises questions about discount.
"Although disqualifying an offender from driving may be regarded as punitive, the primary purpose of the disqualification is to protect the public from future risk."
The CACD agreed with this in Cooksley (2003) and also said:
"Disqualification is designed to protect road users in the future from an offender who had shown himself to be a real risk on the roads."
Adding this:
"We do not agree that the length of the ban should be tailored to take into account the anticipated date of early release of the offender. On the other hand we accept that to extend the ban for a substantial period after release can be counter-productive particularly if it is imposed on an offender who is obsessed with cars or who requires a driving licence to earn his or her living because it may tempt the offender to drive while disqualified."
More recently from the Court of Appeal:
Geale (2009) Risk to the public is not the only relevant criterion for the assessment of length of the disqualification period. In addition, there is or may be an element of punishment. As is apparent from the fact that, even where the future risk is nil, the statutory provisions require a 12 month minimum period of disqualification.
Hussain (2009) - Disqualification is "forward looking and preventative rather than backward looking and punitive ... It is designed to protect road users in future."
Backhouse (2010) - "An order of disqualification has the purpose of protecting the public. Disqualification is also intended to punish and deter offenders and others. A balance, however, has to be struck and the court should not disqualify for a period which is longer than necessary and should bear in mind the effect of a ban on employment or employment prospects."
Penson (2014) - "While the primary purpose of disqualification may be prevention it also has a punitive purpose and should be seen as part of the total sentence."
Agreed that all of the above and the new legislation raises questions about discount.
Edited by agtlaw on Wednesday 13th April 17:34
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff