At Court today...
Discussion
...I gave evidence against a driver I arrested in September last year, on suspicion of driving while unfit to do so through drink and or drugs.
You'll no doubt be pleased to hear that he was convicted, and despite his defence solicitor's attempts at claiming "Special Reasons" not to get disqualified, he got the following:
a 12 month ban from driving
a total of £370.00 in fines and costs
he has to take an extended retest, after he has reapplied for his driving licence
The Magistrates actually told him they thought he was "telling blatant, obvious, lies"...
You'll no doubt be pleased to hear that he was convicted, and despite his defence solicitor's attempts at claiming "Special Reasons" not to get disqualified, he got the following:
a 12 month ban from driving
a total of £370.00 in fines and costs
he has to take an extended retest, after he has reapplied for his driving licence
The Magistrates actually told him they thought he was "telling blatant, obvious, lies"...
"Special reasons" are basically where the offender has either admitted or been convicted of the offence, but there are "special reasons" for them not to get banned.
There are quite a few "speeding" type threads that mention this. The reasons can include the loss of employment, undue hardship etc etc.
I'm sure DVD or Jeffrey Archer could give a much better reply.
And £370.00 is a fairly hefty whack nowadays.
There are quite a few "speeding" type threads that mention this. The reasons can include the loss of employment, undue hardship etc etc.
I'm sure DVD or Jeffrey Archer could give a much better reply.
And £370.00 is a fairly hefty whack nowadays.
I thought special reasons were part of the defendents mitigation? All part of the current legal process. Here clearly his "special reasons" were deemed not special enough by the magistrates and did not warrant them dishing out a punishment at the lower end of the punishment scale.
Interestingly would the magistrates have an option to come down even harder on someone putting forward blatent lies as mitigation?
DAZ
Interestingly would the magistrates have an option to come down even harder on someone putting forward blatent lies as mitigation?
DAZ
dazren said:
I thought special reasons were part of the defendents mitigation? All part of the current legal process.
Special reasons are not anything to do with mitigation although many people in court try to plead special reasons to get away with their offence
'Special reasons' are put before the court after the magistrates/jury/juudge have decided on guilt. They are a last ditch attempt to persuade the court that disqualification should not be part of the punishment they hand out.
Dazren said:
Here clearly his "special reasons" were deemed not special enough by the magistrates and did not warrant them dishing out a punishment at the lower end of the punishment scale.
His special reasons were obviously the lies he told to try and get off
Dazren said:
Interestingly would the magistrates have an option to come down even harder on someone putting forward blatent lies as mitigation?
DAZ
If he had done it from the witness box, then yes. Its called Perjury. Ask Jeffrey Archer all about that one
Dibble said:
...I gave evidence against a driver I arrested in September last year, on suspicion of driving while unfit to do so through drink and or drugs.
he got the following:
a 12 month ban from driving
a total of £370.00 in fines and costs
he has to take an extended retest, after he has reapplied for his driving licence
...
Is he going to get pulled in the next few months without license, MOT, insurance, etc etc etc??? methinks this must be a candidate for such???
IMHO a bit lenient for DD!!!! Here in Germany it's a minimum of a twelvemonth and the idiot test, and re-do license.
The "idiot test" is a government prescribed psychological test to see whether you're "fit" to drive, all they do is wind you up to see if you rise to the bait, then fail you, while charging you ridiculous amounts to take the "test"... most people are failed around 3 times on principle before they're "allowed" to get back on the road......more lucre for bureaucrats.....
There are two separate and distinct areas involved in escaping disqualification and often muddled together.
Firstly in Dibble’s case, Special Reasons can be pleaded. Where an offender in convicted of an offence involving OBLIGATORY disqualification (drink drive, death by dangerous etc) Court must order disqualification for at least 12 months unless for SPECIAL REASONS it thinks fit to impose a shorter ban or none at all.
“Special Reason” is one, which is special to the facts of the case and special to the facts that constitute the offence. A circumstance particular to the offender is not a special reason i.e. held clean Licence for x number of years; hardship a ban would cause. To give some idea, a motorist who having consumed alcohol not intending to drive and an acute emergency required him to take his car out with lack of alternative transport, no other traffic offences, this is capable of being found a Special Reason but there must be clear and compelling circumstances for this to be considered by the Bench. (Section 34 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988)
Secondly under Section 35 RTO 88 in relation to repeated offences where disqualification is imposed i.e. having accrued 12 points in 3 years, a Court must Order disqualification for a minimum period unless satisfied having regard to ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES that there are grounds for mitigating the CONSEQUENCES of the ban, may impose a shorter ban or none at all. Circumstances relating to the offender i.e. loss of employment, hardship, can be submitted. This is often referred to as Special Reasons. It is not.
So it seems apparent the more serious offences will be harder to escape a ban, the less more frequently committed and likely affect the individual more compassion shown.
In both cases it will be the decision of the Court as to what is and what isn’t as opposed to an individuals interpretation.
DVD
Firstly in Dibble’s case, Special Reasons can be pleaded. Where an offender in convicted of an offence involving OBLIGATORY disqualification (drink drive, death by dangerous etc) Court must order disqualification for at least 12 months unless for SPECIAL REASONS it thinks fit to impose a shorter ban or none at all.
“Special Reason” is one, which is special to the facts of the case and special to the facts that constitute the offence. A circumstance particular to the offender is not a special reason i.e. held clean Licence for x number of years; hardship a ban would cause. To give some idea, a motorist who having consumed alcohol not intending to drive and an acute emergency required him to take his car out with lack of alternative transport, no other traffic offences, this is capable of being found a Special Reason but there must be clear and compelling circumstances for this to be considered by the Bench. (Section 34 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988)
Secondly under Section 35 RTO 88 in relation to repeated offences where disqualification is imposed i.e. having accrued 12 points in 3 years, a Court must Order disqualification for a minimum period unless satisfied having regard to ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES that there are grounds for mitigating the CONSEQUENCES of the ban, may impose a shorter ban or none at all. Circumstances relating to the offender i.e. loss of employment, hardship, can be submitted. This is often referred to as Special Reasons. It is not.
So it seems apparent the more serious offences will be harder to escape a ban, the less more frequently committed and likely affect the individual more compassion shown.
In both cases it will be the decision of the Court as to what is and what isn’t as opposed to an individuals interpretation.
DVD
kevinday said:
£370 is not that much, unless you are living hand-to-mouth. IMHO in this sort of case the 'costs' should include all relevant costs, such as Dibble's pay, pay of the court staff etc. as well as the solicitor's fees.
Although you could say that Dibble & the Court Staff wouldn't be employed if no-one broke the law
£370 is not a huge amount, but generaly the fine would pale into insignificance compared to the 12 month ban. This bloke's going to have a pay a hefty insurance premium in a years time.
Martha2004 said:What a ridiculously sweeping statement.
he's prob the type not to have insurance - sounds right dodgy.
Whilst I don't condone drink driving, statements like that are the start of the slippery path that leads you to ones like "he broke the speed limit so he's probably a paedophile".
Special reasons for Ade Akinbiyi (lower division football player) was that he had to travel 150miles each way to training and back.
He escaped a ban...
www.thesentinel.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=67725&command=displayContent&sourceNode=67252&contentPK=10395238
He escaped a ban...
www.thesentinel.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=67725&command=displayContent&sourceNode=67252&contentPK=10395238
mybrainhurts said:
What were the circumstances that led to his arrest and by how much did he exceed the limit, Dibbs?
Report from a member of the public of two lads pushing a vehicle down a road in the early hours. This can be a common thing with thefts of vehicles, as they are often pushed off driveways then started so as not to wake the householder. On my arrival, chummy was in the driving seat, steering and braking, his mate was pushing him.
When I spoke to him it was obvious to me he was "not right", so I conducted field impairment tests and arrested him (the tests can help demonstrate the level of impairment).
He was examined in custody by the Police surgeon who agreed he was inpaired, so blood was taken and sent for analysis. The result of this was cocaine, temazepam, diazepam and diamorphine were all detected, at the upper limits of the range normally found.
There is no actual measurement for drugs like with alcohol, but when asked at Court, I put him at about 75% impaired (with 0% being sober, 100% in a coma).
He didn't have insurance, either.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff