Why only 4 points?
Discussion
Surely 3 for each offence and 55mph in a 30 alone should be at least that for one offence.
https://news.stv.tv/west-central/former-rangers-an...
https://news.stv.tv/west-central/former-rangers-an...
That is shocking, If it had been you or I , I am sure we would have had a bigger fine and at least 6 points .
It is up to a judge to decide what the fine and points would be but 1 and a half times the 30 in one place and nearly double at another I would not like to suggest favours were called in .
It is up to a judge to decide what the fine and points would be but 1 and a half times the 30 in one place and nearly double at another I would not like to suggest favours were called in .
If two or more offences are committed "on the same occasion" it is normal for penalty points only to be awarded for the more serious one. Arrochar and Tarbet are practically one village with well under a mile between them. The judge obviously decided that these offences took place "on the same occasion". That's arguably a slightly genrerous interpretation of the principle, but it doesn't strike me as ridiculously generous.
As for the number of points for the offence, well someone will doubtless quite the English sentencing guidelines for speeding but those are irrelevant: Scotland is a whole other country. One thing Scottish courts do differently is discount the points as well as the fine for a guilty plea. Given that the maximum number of points for speeding is 6, a one third discount would reduce it to 4, so that sounds about right if he pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.
As for the number of points for the offence, well someone will doubtless quite the English sentencing guidelines for speeding but those are irrelevant: Scotland is a whole other country. One thing Scottish courts do differently is discount the points as well as the fine for a guilty plea. Given that the maximum number of points for speeding is 6, a one third discount would reduce it to 4, so that sounds about right if he pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.
Without knowing the finer details, both of those villages are less than a mile apart, so the cameras could of been quite close to each other and arguably seen as the same offence, which would lead them to prosecute off the highest speed.
There are many stretches of road in the UK that have a quick succession of speed cameras and if a person was travelling at 35 in a 30, they could lose their license in less than a mile, so judges will generally use common sense to prosecute as a single offence if caught speeding on one piece of road.
There are many stretches of road in the UK that have a quick succession of speed cameras and if a person was travelling at 35 in a 30, they could lose their license in less than a mile, so judges will generally use common sense to prosecute as a single offence if caught speeding on one piece of road.
LosingGrip said:
I think that would be more if you had been speeding and had no insurance for example. You get the points for no insurance and the speeding is no separate penalty. That's from my experience anyway.
I realise that's how it most often comes up. But the law applies to any two offences committed on the same occasion - it doesn't specify that they have to be different types of offence.https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/53/secti...
So it basically boils down to what you think the law means by "the same occasion" and whether you think it includes speeding through two villages a minute and a few hundred yards apart. I think you can argue it either way, but it doesn't seem wildly unreasonable to suggest that it does. I don't know if there's any case law on the subject - but English case law wouldn't be binding on a Scottish court anyway.
That's assuming that the offences were in quick succession - which the article doesn't make clear. If the second one was on the return journey several hours after the first the sentence is a bit harder to explain.
Aretnap said:
LosingGrip said:
I think that would be more if you had been speeding and had no insurance for example. You get the points for no insurance and the speeding is no separate penalty. That's from my experience anyway.
I realise that's how it most often comes up. But the law applies to any two offences committed on the same occasion - it doesn't specify that they have to be different types of offence.https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/53/secti...
So it basically boils down to what you think the law means by "the same occasion" and whether you think it includes speeding through two villages a minute and a few hundred yards apart. I think you can argue it either way, but it doesn't seem wildly unreasonable to suggest that it does. I don't know if there's any case law on the subject - but English case law wouldn't be binding on a Scottish court anyway.
That's assuming that the offences were in quick succession - which the article doesn't make clear. If the second one was on the return journey several hours after the first the sentence is a bit harder to explain.
Marc p said:
Without knowing the finer details, both of those villages are less than a mile apart, so the cameras could of been quite close to each other and arguably seen as the same offence, which would lead them to prosecute off the highest speed.
There are many stretches of road in the UK that have a quick succession of speed cameras and if a person was travelling at 35 in a 30, they could lose their license in less than a mile, so judges will generally use common sense to prosecute as a single offence if caught speeding on one piece of road.
I initially came on here to share same article, to see thoughts on it.There are many stretches of road in the UK that have a quick succession of speed cameras and if a person was travelling at 35 in a 30, they could lose their license in less than a mile, so judges will generally use common sense to prosecute as a single offence if caught speeding on one piece of road.
I’ve always thought that the “single offence” thing would’ve applied to same stretch of road / speed limit for quick succession. I don’t know the area concerned but if there’s NSL or a higher limit between the two villages, common sense to me would be to treat that as two offences as he would appear to have entered & disregarded lower limits twice?
Obviously a different law to what I practice but with both being on the same journey the judge could use his discretion to reduce the points using the special reasons arguement. Not that unusual and nothing to do with him being famous just how the motoring courts work if the person mitigating knows what they are doing
simonas2702 said:
Obviously a different law to what I practice but with both being on the same journey the judge could use his discretion to reduce the points using the special reasons arguement. Not that unusual and nothing to do with him being famous just how the motoring courts work if the person mitigating knows what they are doing
The magistrate (not judge) has guidelines to adhere to, as we also have no information on the timescales involved between the offences. The location seems to suggest that it was 2 speed restrictions on the same road but with a different limit between them which would make a plea of one continuous offence a hard sell. Seems like normal shoddy reporting with only half the story printed. Never let all the relevant facts get in the way of a good story The big yin said:
That is shocking, If it had been you or I , I am sure we would have had a bigger fine and at least 6 points .
It is up to a judge to decide what the fine and points would be but 1 and a half times the 30 in one place and nearly double at another I would not like to suggest favours were called in .
Why do you think you or I would have been treated differently?It is up to a judge to decide what the fine and points would be but 1 and a half times the 30 in one place and nearly double at another I would not like to suggest favours were called in .
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Well actually it's not tosh, but whether the continuous offence clause was applied correctly in this case is debatable, what does not seem to make sense is 2 separate fines being givenThere have been numerous prosecutions of multiple camera pings on motorways being treated as one offence where it is a continuous journey and there is no change of limit between the cameras
martinbiz said:
Well actually it's not tosh, but whether the continuous offence clause was applied correctly in this case is debatable, what does not seem to make sense is 2 separate fines being given
There have been numerous prosecutions of multiple camera pings on motorways being treated as one offence where it is a continuous journey and there is no change of limit between the cameras
Clearly it wasn't treated as a single continuous offence because there were two fines. One offence would mean only one fine and one set of points.There have been numerous prosecutions of multiple camera pings on motorways being treated as one offence where it is a continuous journey and there is no change of limit between the cameras
However there is a separate question of whether the two offences were committed "on the same occasion". If so the usual result would be two fines but only one set of points (Road Traffic Offenders Act section 28 (4)). "On the same occasion" is not defined by the law; as above it's usually applied to things like speeding while driving through a red light, however in principle it could arguably be applied to two speeding offences committed in very quick succession.
Aretnap said:
martinbiz said:
Well actually it's not tosh, but whether the continuous offence clause was applied correctly in this case is debatable, what does not seem to make sense is 2 separate fines being given
There have been numerous prosecutions of multiple camera pings on motorways being treated as one offence where it is a continuous journey and there is no change of limit between the cameras
Clearly it wasn't treated as a single continuous offence because there were two fines. One offence would mean only one fine and one set of points.There have been numerous prosecutions of multiple camera pings on motorways being treated as one offence where it is a continuous journey and there is no change of limit between the cameras
However there is a separate question of whether the two offences were committed "on the same occasion". If so the usual result would be two fines but only one set of points (Road Traffic Offenders Act section 28 (4)). "On the same occasion" is not defined by the law; as above it's usually applied to things like speeding while driving through a red light, however in principle it could arguably be applied to two speeding offences committed in very quick succession.
And even if it's two then it must me a minimum of 2 x 3 points which would not be subject to any discretionary Scottish discount
Edited by martinbiz on Friday 29th September 18:55
simonas2702 said:
Obviously a different law to what I practice but with both being on the same journey the judge could use his discretion to reduce the points using the special reasons arguement. Not that unusual and nothing to do with him being famous just how the motoring courts work if the person mitigating knows what they are doing
The verb is practise.A large portion of Scotland is split between Rangers fans & Celtic fans with a large portion of Scottish police officers and similar being Rangers fans. Even most of the Freemasons in Scotland are Rangers fans.
Lots of people have been speeding through those areas mentioned as long as i can remember. They're through towns, but where the roads open up they're pretty much exactly the same as most NSL roads. Two lanes, no pavements and long open stretches and good visibility. It could be a combination of that, a great barrister and perhaps a judge who is a fan of the former player.
Lots of people have been speeding through those areas mentioned as long as i can remember. They're through towns, but where the roads open up they're pretty much exactly the same as most NSL roads. Two lanes, no pavements and long open stretches and good visibility. It could be a combination of that, a great barrister and perhaps a judge who is a fan of the former player.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff