Seat Leon 154mph A11

Author
Discussion

agtlaw

Original Poster:

6,725 posts

207 months

Tuesday 2nd August 2016
quotequote all
A policeman making up the law - that never happens.

Unlikely that the CPS were involved in this case. Doesn't stop him asking someone sensible before making foolish remarks to the press.

Fr0dders

176 posts

225 months

Tuesday 2nd August 2016
quotequote all
agtlaw said:
Yes, I'm sure that you've posted some nonsense about 56 day maximum and 120 days.
Source ?

As far as I was aware, lifetime bans were available for the most serious offenses such as Death by Dangerous Driving, but were not given for the offense of speeding. Or are you saying that a lifetime ban is in theory available, although not recommended by sentencing guidelines ?

Rangeroverover

1,523 posts

112 months

Tuesday 2nd August 2016
quotequote all
I'm guessing it would also be too late to lay an extra charge such as dangerous driving as they would be out of time

agtlaw

Original Poster:

6,725 posts

207 months

Tuesday 2nd August 2016
quotequote all
Good guess.

agtlaw

Original Poster:

6,725 posts

207 months

Tuesday 2nd August 2016
quotequote all
Fr0dders said:
agtlaw said:
Yes, I'm sure that you've posted some nonsense about 56 day maximum and 120 days.
Source ?

As far as I was aware, lifetime bans were available for the most serious offenses such as Death by Dangerous Driving, but were not given for the offense of speeding. Or are you saying that a lifetime ban is in theory available, although not recommended by sentencing guidelines ?
See s. 34(2) Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

Your awareness level is poor. It isn't a theory.

MrBarry123

6,029 posts

122 months

Tuesday 2nd August 2016
quotequote all
laugh

Lucky bugger. Good result.

pinchmeimdreamin

9,971 posts

219 months

Tuesday 2nd August 2016
quotequote all
agtlaw said:
Fr0dders said:
agtlaw said:
Yes, I'm sure that you've posted some nonsense about 56 day maximum and 120 days.
Source ?

As far as I was aware, lifetime bans were available for the most serious offenses such as Death by Dangerous Driving, but were not given for the offense of speeding. Or are you saying that a lifetime ban is in theory available, although not recommended by sentencing guidelines ?
See s. 34(2) Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

Your awareness level is poor. It isn't a theory.
I now have an image in my head of AGT as Yoda laugh

tapereel

1,860 posts

117 months

Tuesday 2nd August 2016
quotequote all
agtlaw said:
Fr0dders said:
agtlaw said:
Yes, I'm sure that you've posted some nonsense about 56 day maximum and 120 days.
Source ?

As far as I was aware, lifetime bans were available for the most serious offenses such as Death by Dangerous Driving, but were not given for the offense of speeding. Or are you saying that a lifetime ban is in theory available, although not recommended by sentencing guidelines ?
See s. 34(2) Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

Your awareness level is poor. It isn't a theory.
It is indeed.

I'm wondering how the court thought that a 56 day ban was "fit". I'm wondering how anyone would think that fit.

Maybe the charge(s) should have been different in the first place.

It is of course a matter of opinion and maybe they were subjected to a skilled negotiator on behalf of the defendant.

Rusty569

206 posts

108 months

Tuesday 2nd August 2016
quotequote all
Puddenchucker said:
agtlaw said:
I might have read somewhere, that he was stopped at the roadside. If so that was never an option.
Correct, he was stopped at the time.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/motoring/seat_driver_caught...
I was stopped at the roadside on the A19 at 97mph and pleaded guilty by post. So just because its roadside doesn't mean you don't get the option

agtlaw

Original Poster:

6,725 posts

207 months

Tuesday 2nd August 2016
quotequote all
Rusty569 said:
Puddenchucker said:
agtlaw said:
I might have read somewhere, that he was stopped at the roadside. If so that was never an option.
Correct, he was stopped at the time.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/motoring/seat_driver_caught...
I was stopped at the roadside on the A19 at 97mph and pleaded guilty by post. So just because its roadside doesn't mean you don't get the option
You've completely missed the point. The posts were about failing to respond to a s.172 notice. Nothing to do with pleading guilty by post.

WJNB

2,637 posts

162 months

Tuesday 2nd August 2016
quotequote all
PlayFair said:
A medal for getting a SEAT Leon to do 154mph....
How embarrassing knowing the world now knows you drive a SEAT. Achieving 145mph does NOT re-instate credibility.
Better buy a BENCH GT or a SOFA de-luxe with folding 'arm' rests.

GC8

19,910 posts

191 months

Tuesday 2nd August 2016
quotequote all
LeighW said:
He looked quite relieved anyway... hehe


0a

23,902 posts

195 months

Tuesday 2nd August 2016
quotequote all
Blimey what a good result.

Alucidnation

16,810 posts

171 months

Tuesday 2nd August 2016
quotequote all
WJNB said:
PlayFair said:
A medal for getting a SEAT Leon to do 154mph....
How embarrassing knowing the world now knows you drive a SEAT. Achieving 145mph does NOT re-instate credibility.
Better buy a BENCH GT or a SOFA de-luxe with folding 'arm' rests.
That reads a bit like being a badge snob.

cmaguire

3,589 posts

110 months

Tuesday 2nd August 2016
quotequote all
This is local news for me.

They're all getting on board whinging about the verdict now.

If I get caught doing 150+ I'll know who to call

Markm49uk

8 posts

122 months

Wednesday 3rd August 2016
quotequote all
WJNB said:
How embarrassing knowing the world now knows you drive a SEAT. Achieving 145mph does NOT re-instate credibility.
Better buy a BENCH GT or a SOFA de-luxe with folding 'arm' rests.
Wow what a cock you are.

anonymous-user

55 months

Wednesday 3rd August 2016
quotequote all
The guy was a bit daft doing that speed, but no one got hurt and he got prosecuted.

Now we have a police commissioner telling us because his c0ck works the guy should have been locked up and others getting just as upset at the leniency of the sentence as they did over Stuart Hall getting just 15 months for having sex with a 9 year old.

Only in the UK could so many bell ends demonise a speeder as much as a paedophile!

Won't matter soon as there won't be a single bit of road that isn't full or covered in variable speed limits backed up with speed cameras (monetised motorway) as the government and do gooders aim to undo 250 years of technological revolution and deliberately lengthen journey times to the point where no one will bother any more as the country hurtles towards bankruptcy anyway!

Fr0dders

176 posts

225 months

Wednesday 3rd August 2016
quotequote all
agtlaw said:
See s. 34(2) Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

Your awareness level is poor. It isn't a theory.
Why do you have to come across like such a **** ?

So we'\re back to what I suggested whereby the magistrate has in theory the legal power to ban for lifetime, but never will as its outside what the sentencing council recommends and magistrates will rarely if ever exceed what's recommended.

agtlaw

Original Poster:

6,725 posts

207 months

Wednesday 3rd August 2016
quotequote all
No, that isn't right, it still isn't a theory and clearly you don't understand the process.

Parliament determines the maximum sentence for an offence. Some offences also have a minimum sentence.

The Sentencing Council issues guidelines for sentencers to follow within those parameters. Unless contrary to the interests of justice then the court must follow any relevant guideline.

Parliament has determined that the maximum sentence for speeding is a £2500 fine for motorway offences, or a £1000 fine in other cases. There is also a discretionary disqualification from driving - "for such period as the court thinks fit."

Whilst there is a Sentencing Council guideline for speeding, the guideline does not include a category range for speeds in excess of 110 mph and even if there were one then there is no duty on the court to impose a sentence within the category range.

Edited by agtlaw on Wednesday 3rd August 09:04

page3

4,924 posts

252 months

Wednesday 3rd August 2016
quotequote all
My understanding is that this wasn't a Seat Cupra, but a modified mk 2 FR. So yet again we have journalists simply copying each other without any level of professionalism. Actually checking the facts before publishing a story would be refreshing.

That's all I take away from this story.