Do magistrates make sense with driving offence punishments ?
Discussion
Verbatim report from local newspaper
Case 1
“He was driving very close to a number of vehicles which were driving at the national speed limit in lane two, whilst passing slower moving traffic in lane one.
When it became possible, he accelerated to speeds of 85 to 90mph to within a car’s length from the next vehicle in lane two, and then moved from side to side in the lane to encourage the driver in front to get out of his way.”
Fine £600. Victim surcharge £60. Costs £90. Total £750
Case 2
“He failed to pay appropriate care and attention at the approach of a roundabout and collided with rear of a learner driver. He also pleaded guilty to driving with a provisional driving licence and was driving unsupervised and without displaying L plates and driving without insurance “
Fine £110 Victim Surcharge £20 Costs £90 Total £220
So, case 1, obviously someone got a bit (stupidly) inpatient with lane 2 lane hoggers, and didn’t deal with it in a sensible manner. Case 2, someone deliberately choose to drive uninsured, without a licences, and wrecked the car of an innocent road user. Case 1 Fine £750. Case 2 Fine £220. Justice or fair ?
There were also 3 drunk driver cases
Case D1 Over the limit 2.0 Fine £320 VS £32 Costs £85 Total £437
Case D2 Over the limit 1.5 Fine £280 VS £28 Costs £85 Total £393
Case D3 Over the limit 2.2 Fine £280 VS £28 Costs £85 Total £393
Again, why not punished as much a the first case ?
Case 1
“He was driving very close to a number of vehicles which were driving at the national speed limit in lane two, whilst passing slower moving traffic in lane one.
When it became possible, he accelerated to speeds of 85 to 90mph to within a car’s length from the next vehicle in lane two, and then moved from side to side in the lane to encourage the driver in front to get out of his way.”
Fine £600. Victim surcharge £60. Costs £90. Total £750
Case 2
“He failed to pay appropriate care and attention at the approach of a roundabout and collided with rear of a learner driver. He also pleaded guilty to driving with a provisional driving licence and was driving unsupervised and without displaying L plates and driving without insurance “
Fine £110 Victim Surcharge £20 Costs £90 Total £220
So, case 1, obviously someone got a bit (stupidly) inpatient with lane 2 lane hoggers, and didn’t deal with it in a sensible manner. Case 2, someone deliberately choose to drive uninsured, without a licences, and wrecked the car of an innocent road user. Case 1 Fine £750. Case 2 Fine £220. Justice or fair ?
There were also 3 drunk driver cases
Case D1 Over the limit 2.0 Fine £320 VS £32 Costs £85 Total £437
Case D2 Over the limit 1.5 Fine £280 VS £28 Costs £85 Total £393
Case D3 Over the limit 2.2 Fine £280 VS £28 Costs £85 Total £393
Again, why not punished as much a the first case ?
I think Magistrates have to take into account the financial circumstances of the guilty party when considering fines.
I was a witness in a case where a driver reversed into a pedestrian outside a school and drove off. They were found guilty of driving without due care and attention, failing to stop at the scene of an accident, and another charge which escapes my memory right now. They received seven points and a seven hundred odd quid fine. However as they were on benefits the Magistrates had no choice but to reduce the fine to £260, which would be taken from their benefits in installments, before they received them.
Perhaps this was also the case in the second court case you mention? Not 'fair' but then life rarely is.
I was a witness in a case where a driver reversed into a pedestrian outside a school and drove off. They were found guilty of driving without due care and attention, failing to stop at the scene of an accident, and another charge which escapes my memory right now. They received seven points and a seven hundred odd quid fine. However as they were on benefits the Magistrates had no choice but to reduce the fine to £260, which would be taken from their benefits in installments, before they received them.
Perhaps this was also the case in the second court case you mention? Not 'fair' but then life rarely is.
Deliberately breaking the law seems to be fined more heavily than incompetence, no matter how dangerous the incompetence might be. However, "technical" breaches of insurance cover seem to carry the same punishment as just not bothering to buy a policy.
As with all things involving the law, the hammer seems to fall much harder on those with something to lose.
As with all things involving the law, the hammer seems to fall much harder on those with something to lose.
I always find the fines for having no insurance perplexing.
Very often, my local paper reports of £200 fines and some points when the 22 year old in question would be lucky to get their car insured for less than £1500.
The fine should be the average of the 3 cheapest "compare the market" quotes multiplied by 5.
Driving a car is a privilege not a yuman rite.
Very often, my local paper reports of £200 fines and some points when the 22 year old in question would be lucky to get their car insured for less than £1500.
The fine should be the average of the 3 cheapest "compare the market" quotes multiplied by 5.
Driving a car is a privilege not a yuman rite.
agtlaw said:
robinessex said:
Verbatim report from local newspaper
Justice or fair ?
Again, why not punished as much a the first case ?
Fines are in large part assessed according to the offender's means. Justice or fair ?
Again, why not punished as much a the first case ?
agtlaw said:
robinessex said:
Verbatim report from local newspaper
Justice or fair ?
Again, why not punished as much a the first case ?
Fines are in large part assessed according to the offender's means. Justice or fair ?
Again, why not punished as much a the first case ?
a 250 GBP fine for someone working at NMW is more than a full weeks wages, whereas for the 'average' powerfully built Company Director PHer it's a few minutes to a couple of hours billed rate ...
Government decide the maximum penalty for each offence. The Sentencing Council then issues guidelines for the courts to follow. The CPS decide which offence to charge. Spend some time in the public gallery of your local court when they are dealing with motoring offences and you will hear charges of DWDC which most people would consider to merit a dangerous driving charge. Sentencers must sentence the offence as charged and are not allowed to increase the penalty to reflect their view of what should have been charged.
Sadly, people tend to complain about the courts and not the government, the Sentencing Council or the CPS.
The guidelines for fines express them as a percentage of a weeks take home pay and not a specific amount. Courts are required to consider proportionality ie does the fine fit the offence. In practice that means that people on huge salaries will pay a lot less than a weeks pay.
As an example the maximum fine for speeding on an A road is £1000. The guideline for 56 in a 40 on a non motorway is a weeks pay. So Wayne Rooney would only pay a tiny fraction of his weeks pay if convicted of that speed. The court would then (following the guidelines) consider if it was just to impose the maximum fine of £1000 - unless there were aggravating circumstances such as fog, ice or children crossing the road the answer would be probably not. So the fine would be reduced even more.
Sadly, people tend to complain about the courts and not the government, the Sentencing Council or the CPS.
The guidelines for fines express them as a percentage of a weeks take home pay and not a specific amount. Courts are required to consider proportionality ie does the fine fit the offence. In practice that means that people on huge salaries will pay a lot less than a weeks pay.
As an example the maximum fine for speeding on an A road is £1000. The guideline for 56 in a 40 on a non motorway is a weeks pay. So Wayne Rooney would only pay a tiny fraction of his weeks pay if convicted of that speed. The court would then (following the guidelines) consider if it was just to impose the maximum fine of £1000 - unless there were aggravating circumstances such as fog, ice or children crossing the road the answer would be probably not. So the fine would be reduced even more.
robinessex said:
Ok, maybe that's fair. But, for deliberate actions like case 2 I quoted, how about a 1 yr ban, and confiscate the car. Can get on the damn bus.
Should a disqualification from driving be:a) "forward looking and preventative rather than backward looking and punitive ... It is designed to protect road users in future."
or;
b) "disqualification is ... intended to punish and deter offenders and others"
Edited by agtlaw on Monday 2nd February 11:09
agtlaw said:
robinessex said:
Ok, maybe that's fair. But, for deliberate actions like case 2 I quoted, how about a 1 yr ban, and confiscate the car. Can get on the damn bus.
Should a disqualification from driving be:a) "forward looking and preventative rather than backward looking and punitive ... It is designed to protect road users in future."
or;
b) "disqualification is ... intended to punish and deter offenders and others"
Macadoodle said:
Can it not be both? Other offences (admittedly custodial) are viewed this way. A person is convicted of a crime and sent to prison as a punishment and also to protect the general public from harm. Only let out when it can be reasonably proved they are no longer a danger (although we've all read of cases where this went wrong).
No, and you must mean sentences. Disqualification from driving is not a sentence - the fine is the sentence and disqualification is an "ancillary order". Plead guilty and your sentence will be reduced but the disqualification period might not be reduced at all.
agtlaw said:
No, and you must mean sentences.
Disqualification from driving is not a sentence - the fine is the sentence and disqualification is an "ancillary order". Plead guilty and your sentence will be reduced but the disqualification period might not be reduced at all.
Yes, I meant sentences. I wasn't aware of the legal differences between a sentence and a ban. Thought it was all part of the same thing. Every day's a school day!Disqualification from driving is not a sentence - the fine is the sentence and disqualification is an "ancillary order". Plead guilty and your sentence will be reduced but the disqualification period might not be reduced at all.
The gist of my point still stands though - a disqualification could be used as a punishment, deterrent to others and a way of keeping the guilty party off the road. Although there is the argument that someone found guilty of driving without a full licence won't give a toss, and just simply get into a car again.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff