Crash, car taken without permission, no insurance/licence

[ArchEnemy]

Aretnap said:

A suspended sentence nearly always comes with some form of community order - eg unpaid work, a curfew and an electronic tag, compulsory alcohol rehabilitation, or a combination thereof. Did you miss that part out, or was there some unusual reason why it wasn't imposed?

Unfortunately I don't have every detail, I think there's an optional drink driving/alcohol course (for £250), which reduces the ban by 25%.

Not really a punishment, given the ban reduction!

[Aretnap]

ArchEnemy said:

Aretnap said:

A suspended sentence nearly always comes with some form of community order - eg unpaid work, a curfew and an electronic tag, compulsory alcohol rehabilitation, or a combination thereof. Did you miss that part out, or was there some unusual reason why it wasn't imposed?

Unfortunately I don't have every detail, I think there's an optional drink driving/alcohol course (for £250), which reduces the ban by 25%.

Not really a punishment, given the ban reduction!

The drink driver rehabilitation course is reasonably standard for any (first time) drink driving ban. It's not intended as a punishment, but it has been shown that people who complete them are less likely to reoffend ( this is a bit old, but suggests 2.6 times less likely) so the reduction in the ban is intended as an incentive to do the course.

It's worth mentioning that at four times the limit he'll fall under the DVLA's high risk offender scheme, so even when his ban is up he'll have to have some medical tests to prove that he doesn't have a drink problem before he can get his licence back.

Back to the main point though, I'd be willing to bet, perhaps not my mortgage, but certainly as many drinks as he had that night, that there'll also be a significant community penalty in there somewhere, which will be the main punitive part of the sentence. Most likely he'll be spending a lot of his spare time over the next few months picking up litter and cleaning up graffiti with a bunch of (other) low lifes. If he doesn't turn up, it will activate the suspended sentence.

[NikBartlett]

ArchEnemy said:

Update!

So the details were:

4x over the drink drive limit ~
Provisional licence
No insurance
Vehicle taken without consent and crashed, 2 passengers with minor injuries

--

He entered a guilty plea.

8 week custodial sentence, suspended for 12 months.

Total of a £200~ fine/costs.

3 year driving ban.

--

Make your own judgements, I think he was very fortunate.

Quite a charge list for a first offence. Entering the guilty plea probably the difference between jail time and suspended sentence, jails probably full anyway. Fine is pathetic but if he has no income then it's irrelevant as it will be extracted at £5 a week feom benefits. 3 year driving ban about the only decent punishment, no insurance company will touch him for years now. The big question is whether any of this will make him consider his stupidity and means he won't reoffend.

[flying-banana]

Aretnap said:

flying-banana said:

...and isn't there some irony in someone being caught driving with no license & no insurance ends up with a driving ban...

Not really. Having no licence is not the same as being banned for two reasons

(1) If you have no licence, you can get a licence (a provisional one, at any rate) any time you like by sending a form to the DVLA. If you're banned you can't - you have no way of driving legally until the ban expires.
(2) You can't go to prison for driving without a licence/insurance. You can for driving while banned.

A ban will always be in addition to some other punishment... so would you be happier if he were not banned?

The whole punishment seemed somewhat lenient, and whilst I appreciate that the punishments will be escalated should something similar happen again, I don't see that that would be much of a deterrent to the sort of person who would do this in the first place.

...and I just think it always sounds slightly ironic, someone without a license getting banned, even though it is a step up the punishment scale

[Countdown]

Rather than these pointless punishments I've often advocated for the modern equivalent of the "Short Sharp Shock" i.e. tasering people in the balls (once for each guilty plea). It's cheap, it reduces reoffending, and the victim can carry it out if they want. What's not to like?

[wrong_turn]

ArchEnemy said:

Unfortunately I don't have every detail, I think there's an optional drink driving/alcohol course (for £250), which reduces the ban by 25%.

Not really a punishment, given the ban reduction!

For me it was £160 for a four-day Zoom course, about 6 hours per day so not to be taken lightly. It is quite difficult. Several people were kicked out just on day one. I think we started with 11 people, you get divided into sub-groups and have no way of knowing if the instructor (or his bosses) are sitting in. And you do get singled out when back in the main group to answer questions and how you arrived at your answers. The theory of how much you can drink and how long it takes to get back within the limit is nothing like my real life experience, you just have to tow the line and do the maths.

When people complain about the fine they aren't aware of the other costs. I lost my job, had to pay for a full year's insurance despite being about three months in, and I had to pay all of my insurers costs - I didn't injure anybody but I will still be paying until at least next autumn.

I believe there will be a marker on my car that will trigger "routine" stops. But I had to get rid of the car anyway as I don't have a drive and can't insure anything in a public space.

Insurance is going to be stupidly expensive for at least 5 years and I might not be able to find another job if they ask about convictions.

And I am not a "high risk" offender. I suspect the relative will find it much easier to just carry on driving without licence/insurance as you see on the TV shows.

Edit: forgot to mention the car was recovered and stored an hour away despite the recovery company having a yard in the same town I live in. £300, as they charge for weekends when they aren't open for you to collect your car. If I didn't have a friend go to collect it, they would have charged me to scrap it. My own insurance would have done it for free if anybody bothered to ask.

Edited by wrong_turn on Sunday 24th October 16:22

[ConnectionError]

Countdown said:

Rather than these pointless punishments I've often advocated for the modern equivalent of the "Short Sharp Shock" i.e. tasering people in the balls (once for each guilty plea). It's cheap, it reduces reoffending, and the victim can carry it out if they want. What's not to like?

Nothing, great idea.

Unless the guilty party has no balls.... What do you suggest in that situation?

[matty g]

4rephill said:

the insurance is declared void ((with the exception of third party claims - Which the insurance company can claim back form the owner), t

I know I'm dragging up an old thread, But I've been discussing this point with a friend.

The minumum legal requirement is 3rd party cover.
How can they not be insured yet still be insured.

If they drove "without insurance" but a 3rd party could still claim then surely they are driving with insurance.

I've only ever seen the offence of TWOC. Not TWOC and no insurance.. I assuming that their would be TWOC and no insurance IF there was no insurance on the vehicle at all...

[Aretnap]

matty g said:

I know I'm dragging up an old thread, But I've been discussing this point with a friend.

The minumum legal requirement is 3rd party cover.
How can they not be insured yet still be insured.

If they drove "without insurance" but a 3rd party could still claim then surely they are driving with insurance.

Basically, the law (Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act) requires that you have an insurance policy that covers your use of the vehicle. If there is no insurance policy that says "matty g is insured to drive this vehicle" then you're driving without insurance.

Completely separate to that, there are various provisions in place to ensure that victims of uninsured drivers have some means if obtaining compensation. The rough principle is that the insurer with the closest connection to the car pays, and if the vehicle has no insurance whatsoever then the Motor Insurer's Bureau pays out if central funds. However none of these provisions creates a new insurance policy which covers you to drive the vehicle and which complies with S143 of the RTA. Basically they are there to protect other people from the consequences of your uninsured driving, not to protect you from it's consequences. So you can still be convicted of driving without insurance, and the insurer or the MIB whoever paid to clear up the damage you caused is allowed to come after you for the money.

[Pit Pony]

RSTurboPaul said:

Psycho Warren said:

Hopefully he will be done for TWOC, no insurance, no licence, careless or dangerous driving for the crash etc etc.

I predict a £300 fine and 6 points and a slap on the wrist...

Imprison

[matty g]

Aretnap said:

Basically, the law (Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act) requires that you have an insurance policy that covers your use of the vehicle. If there is no insurance policy that says "matty g is insured to drive this vehicle" then you're driving without insurance.

Completely separate to that, there are various provisions in place to ensure that victims of uninsured drivers have some means if obtaining compensation. The rough principle is that the insurer with the closest connection to the car pays, and if the vehicle has no insurance whatsoever then the Motor Insurer's Bureau pays out if central funds. However none of these provisions creates a new insurance policy which covers you to drive the vehicle and which complies with S143 of the RTA. Basically they are there to protect other people from the consequences of your uninsured driving, not to protect you from it's consequences. So you can still be convicted of driving without insurance, and the insurer or the MIB whoever paid to clear up the damage you caused is allowed to come after you for the money.

I've been trying to find the sentancing guidlines.. Seems that points are only applicable to Agrevated TWOC 3-11 points which is less than having no insurance (at the lower end)

[Tom1312]

This is a case of aggravated TWOC so harsher guidelines apply.

Edit: just seen the OPS update. Sounds about right sadly. Good length of ban though.

[Aretnap]

matty g said:

I've been trying to find the sentancing guidlines.. Seems that points are only applicable to Agrevated TWOC 3-11 points which is less than having no insurance (at the lower end)

Aggravated TWOC comes with a minimum ban of one year in nearly all circumstances. Points would only come into play if the court decided not to impose a ban for some exceptional reason (eg you took someone else's car in a genuine emergency).

Edited by Aretnap on Saturday 4th March 12:57

[martinbiz]

Pit Pony said:

RSTurboPaul said:

Psycho Warren said:

Hopefully he will be done for TWOC, no insurance, no licence, careless or dangerous driving for the crash etc etc.

I predict a £300 fine and 6 points and a slap on the wrist...

Imprison

I doubt it, you've dug up comments from 2 years ago, he has long since been convicted and sentenced