108 in a 30 limit

[agtlaw]

doesthiswork said:

agtlaw said:

Listed at 2:30 p.m. tomorrow at South Tyneside MC.

How do we find out what happened?

Sunderland Echo

Edited by agtlaw on Monday 26th October 11:28

[agtlaw]

agtlaw said:

@bv72

4m suspended for 18m (to include 200 hrs unpaid work). Disqualification 18m. Extended retest.

If the sentence weren’t during the covid pandemic then immediate not suspended sentence.

I wrote that on 3 October. Actual sentence:

6m suspended for 24m (to include 200 hrs unpaid work.) Disqualification 24m. Extended retest.

DJ said, "I’m just persuaded that it’s a suspended sentence.”

[anonymous-user]

That was a pretty good prediction!

[agtlaw]

Thanks. That would have been the sentence if I dealt with it.

[RSTurboPaul]

Jobless and driving a C63?

Although it doesn't say if he was jobless at the time of the offence.

[Gweeds]

How the fk anyone who does that ever gets behind the wheel again is beyond me.

[Gweeds]

Also

“ “I can take account of the fact that the offence was more than a year ago”

And?

[RSTurboPaul]

Gweeds said:

Also

“ “I can take account of the fact that the offence was more than a year ago”

And?

I was presuming that he hadn't killed anyone with his driving in that time so all is fine? lol

[Buster73]

Previous conviction for dangerous driving last September in the same court.

Not the sharpest chisel in the box was he.

[anonymous-user]

You may wish to reconsider who is or is not a sharp chisel. The September conviction was for the same offence. Sentencing was adjourned. Hence two hearings.

[Sheepshanks]

Buster73 said:

Previous conviction for dangerous driving last September in the same court.

Not the sharpest chisel in the box was he.

The conviction was for this offence. Latest appearance was for sentencing.


ETA: Beaten to it! Appreciate they have to do pre-sentencing reports etc, but could he not have been bannned at the point of conviction?o

Edited by Sheepshanks on Monday 26th October 13:38

[agtlaw]

Buster73 said:

Previous conviction for dangerous driving last September in the same court.

Not the sharpest chisel in the box was he.

That's the same offence rather than a previous conviction.

Offence: August 2019
Conviction: September 2019
Sentence: October 2020

The SC General guideline: overarching principles says this about "Delay since apprehension:"

"Where there has been an unreasonable delay in proceedings since apprehension which is not the fault of the offender, the court may take this into account by reducing the sentence if this has had a detrimental effect on the offender.

Note: No fault should attach to an offender for not admitting an offence and/or putting the prosecution to proof of its case."

[poo at Paul's]

Disappointing sentence.
Why suspend it?

We have sent people to prison for excessive speed / DD before, out on open roads, motorways etc. To drive like this in a town, with all that traffic about, is completely unhinged and to not lock the up seems utterly absurd.

[kestral]

He should have gone 'no comment'. 6 points and £1000 fine.

[agtlaw]

kestral said:

He should have gone 'no comment'. 6 points and £1000 fine.

That only works if they can't prove who was driving without an admission and I note that this is a dangerous driving case rather than a straightforward speeding case.

If they can prove the offence without an admission then kestral's suggestion would be the best strategy for an immediate rather than suspended prison sentence.

[kestral]

agtlaw said:

That only works if they can't prove who was driving without an admission and I note that this is a dangerous driving case rather than a straightforward speeding case.

If they can prove the offence without an admission then kestral's suggestion would be the best strategy for an immediate rather than suspended prison sentence.

What difference does it make as regards to the ID of the driver in a DD case as opposed to a speeding?

[roadsmash]

This picture sums it up.



What a

[agtlaw]

kestral said:

What difference does it make as regards to the ID of the driver in a DD case as opposed to a speeding?

Have a think about the investigation process.

[kestral]

agtlaw said:

Have a think about the investigation process.

I have and the investigative process would be the same as for speeding.

Serve a section 172 notice on the reg keeper or any other person to ID the driver.

He just says 'no comment' if arrested and interviewed.


?

[agtlaw]

Wrong.