£1,639 fine & 6 month ban for 68mph on M1
£1,639 fine & 6 month ban for 68mph on M1
Author
Discussion

livinginasia

Original Poster:

944 posts

133 months

Tuesday 4th April 2023
quotequote all
Regardless being a minister or not, if the M1 really was empty, why on earth was there a 40mph limit in force late at night?

Seems a bit harsh?

https://news.sky.com/story/immigration-minister-ro...

Caddyshack

13,802 posts

229 months

Tuesday 4th April 2023
quotequote all
Sounds ridiculous

Aretnap

1,934 posts

174 months

Tuesday 4th April 2023
quotequote all
The article is light on detail, but the six month pay suggests that he was banned for totting up (ie reaching 12 points), rather than sunbelt for that offence.

As for why there was a 40 mph limit in force in the middle of the night, who knows? Maybe there was a broken down car in a live lane somewhere ahead? Again we have no real detail beyond his own sorry statement.

BertBert

20,880 posts

234 months

Tuesday 4th April 2023
quotequote all
Yes he surely couldn't get a 6 month been for that offence alone

the-norseman

15,060 posts

194 months

Tuesday 4th April 2023
quotequote all
The section from MK to Luton is regular 40-60mph at night.

I went to Luton airport at 3am a while ago, roads completely dead apart from a few HGV's and it was set at 40, no roadworks or anything.

Somewhatfoolish

4,968 posts

209 months

Tuesday 4th April 2023
quotequote all
While this is stupid in one sense, it's also extremely incompetent to not notice a 40mph limit on the M1. I can't see how you could do that while being even a vaguely competent driver. And 68 in 40 is an egregious breach of the limit. I do far worse of course, but it isn't an accident. And as others have said that's totting up - so he has more speeding tickets.

MPs need to be held to a high standard given all their stupid laws. So he can suck it up.

Maybe this will encourage him to remove the whole concept of speed limits as any reasonable person should. Not holding my breath for that.

Maxdecel

1,917 posts

56 months

Tuesday 4th April 2023
quotequote all
Aretnap said:
The article is light on detail, but the six month pay suggests that he was banned for totting up (ie reaching 12 points), rather than sunbelt for that offence.
..........Mr Jenrick was fined £307 and handed three penalty points in March for speeding on the A40 in west London in August 2021.
https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/minister-robert-j...
March ! .....from 2021 irked

Somewhatfoolish

4,968 posts

209 months

Tuesday 4th April 2023
quotequote all
Maxdecel said:
Aretnap said:
The article is light on detail, but the six month pay suggests that he was banned for totting up (ie reaching 12 points), rather than sunbelt for that offence.
..........Mr Jenrick was fined £307 and handed three penalty points in March for speeding on the A40 in west London in August 2021.
https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/minister-robert-j...
March ! .....from 2021 irked
And look at the lane hogging in that photo!

Bloody nuisance person tbh.

(He also appears to have foolishly given his actual income to the mags - not a clever thing to do if you can avoid it and you earn over the assumed income, which while over the average is not much by pistonheads standards)

Maxdecel

1,917 posts

56 months

Tuesday 4th April 2023
quotequote all
Somewhatfoolish said:
And look at the lane hogging in that photo!

Bloody nuisance person tbh.

(He also appears to have foolishly given his actual income to the mags - not a clever thing to do if you can avoid it and you earn over the assumed income, which while over the average is not much by pistonheads standards)
Priority lane/ViP ? biglaugh

agtlaw

7,280 posts

229 months

Wednesday 5th April 2023
quotequote all
Somewhatfoolish said:
And look at the lane hogging in that photo!

Bloody nuisance person tbh.

(He also appears to have foolishly given his actual income to the mags - not a clever thing to do if you can avoid it and you earn over the assumed income, which while over the average is not much by pistonheads standards)
One magistrate only, as the case concluded at the Single Justice stage. He didn’t appear at court. Disqualified in absence. On another forum, various legal walts claim this doesn’t happen. It appears that he declared his net weekly income as £1,107.

IJWS15

2,119 posts

108 months

Wednesday 5th April 2023
quotequote all
For those who ask why the limit is there when there is nothing on the road . . .

- a crew may have just joined the motorway behind you to start putting cones out for roadworks.

- a crew may have just lifted the last cones following some roadworks.

- maybe there has been a report of people/animals on the road.

and many other things, just because you didn't see anything doesn't mean there is no reason for the limit.

I use "didn't" and not "couldn't" because many drivers observation skills are poor, just watch one of the various police programmes and count the number of drivers who didn't see blue flashing lights behind them.

Jarcy

1,559 posts

298 months

Wednesday 5th April 2023
quotequote all
I notice that the victim surcharge on fines has now increased from 10% to 40%.
£442 to the victims of this heinous crime, compared to the otherwise maximum victim surcharge of £228 for custodial sentences (from 2 years to life).

Solocle

3,980 posts

107 months

Wednesday 5th April 2023
quotequote all
From the photo in the linked article, he deserves it.

agtlaw

7,280 posts

229 months

Wednesday 5th April 2023
quotequote all
Jarcy said:
I notice that the victim surcharge on fines has now increased from 10% to 40%.
£442 to the victims of this heinous crime, compared to the otherwise maximum victim surcharge of £228 for custodial sentences (from 2 years to life).
A tax on motorists. Criminals don’t pay it.

XCP

17,599 posts

251 months

Wednesday 5th April 2023
quotequote all
agtlaw said:
A tax on motorists. Criminals don’t pay it.
They don't pay fines or compensation orders either in vast numbers of cases.

Heaveho

6,753 posts

197 months

Wednesday 5th April 2023
quotequote all
I'd let him off with the speeding which seems like a total none story, but ban him for lack of lane discipline, which is pathetic.

DocSteve

726 posts

245 months

Wednesday 5th April 2023
quotequote all
agtlaw said:
One magistrate only, as the case concluded at the Single Justice stage. He didn’t appear at court. Disqualified in absence. On another forum, various legal walts claim this doesn’t happen. It appears that he declared his net weekly income as £1,107.
My understanding based on legal advice was that, at least for speeding offences at the time said advice was given, if you opt not to attend court and you are not required to attend the magistrate cannot disqualify you. Is this now incorrect, or does it change if totting up is involved?

Hugo Stiglitz

40,562 posts

234 months

Wednesday 5th April 2023
quotequote all
agtlaw said:
Jarcy said:
I notice that the victim surcharge on fines has now increased from 10% to 40%.
£442 to the victims of this heinous crime, compared to the otherwise maximum victim surcharge of £228 for custodial sentences (from 2 years to life).
A tax on motorists. Criminals don’t pay it.
Victim compensation? I've had it a number of times for assaults...

agtlaw

7,280 posts

229 months

Wednesday 5th April 2023
quotequote all
Hugo Stiglitz said:
Victim compensation? I've had it a number of times for assaults...
The so-called victim surcharge is not a Compensation Order. Courts will remit fines, etc., but not Compensation Orders.


Edited by agtlaw on Wednesday 5th April 19:15

agtlaw

7,280 posts

229 months

Wednesday 5th April 2023
quotequote all
DocSteve said:
My understanding based on legal advice was that, at least for speeding offences at the time said advice was given, if you opt not to attend court and you are not required to attend the magistrate cannot disqualify you. Is this incorrect
Courtroom 77.