Speeding fine level according to income

[Tafia]

How can this be right.

A guy was done for 35 in a 30 ( A548, N. Wales )and because he had a high salary, he was fined £1000 plus £60 costs.

So if my income is 2P per month, I get a free one?

[vonhosen]

Tafia said:

How can this be right.

A guy was done for 35 in a 30 ( A548, N. Wales )and because he had a high salary, he was fined £1000 plus £60 costs.

So if my income is 2P per month, I get a free one?

There is a maximum fine for each offence. Within that maximum range all fines that are then issued are means tested.

[mojocvh]

vonhosen said:

Tafia said:

How can this be right.

A guy was done for 35 in a 30 ( A548, N. Wales )and because he had a high salary, he was fined £1000 plus £60 costs.

So if my income is 2P per month, I get a free one?

There is a maximum fine for each offence. Within that maximum range all fines that are then issued are means tested.

Well thats fair then.

[justinp1]

Tafia said:

How can this be right.

A guy was done for 35 in a 30 ( A548, N. Wales )and because he had a high salary, he was fined £1000 plus £60 costs.

So if my income is 2P per month, I get a free one?

I think there is more to this:

To be in court he has most likely rejected a fixed penalty notice - £1000 fine looks like a suitable warning to others?

I am pretty sure that one of the tests of a reasonable fine is that the fine should be relative to FPN - this was highlighted in the same recent judgement which went to appeal over Teletraffic wanting £800 expert witness costs.

If this is right, I am sure Paul (Safespeed) would like to know if this.

[vonhosen]

justinp1 said:

Tafia said:

How can this be right.

A guy was done for 35 in a 30 ( A548, N. Wales )and because he had a high salary, he was fined £1000 plus £60 costs.

So if my income is 2P per month, I get a free one?

I think there is more to this:

To be in court he has most likely rejected a fixed penalty notice - £1000 fine looks like a suitable warning to others?

I am pretty sure that one of the tests of a reasonable fine is that the fine should be relative to FPN - this was highlighted in the same recent judgement which went to appeal over Teletraffic wanting £800 expert witness costs.

If this is right, I am sure Paul (Safespeed) would like to know if this.

You are assuming the FPN was offered in the first place though.
The fine shouldn't be tied to the FPN value if it was never offered in the first place.
Costs awareded are a seperate issue to fines issued.

[justinp1]

vonhosen said:

justinp1 said:

Tafia said:

How can this be right.

A guy was done for 35 in a 30 ( A548, N. Wales )and because he had a high salary, he was fined £1000 plus £60 costs.

So if my income is 2P per month, I get a free one?

I think there is more to this:

To be in court he has most likely rejected a fixed penalty notice - £1000 fine looks like a suitable warning to others?

I am pretty sure that one of the tests of a reasonable fine is that the fine should be relative to FPN - this was highlighted in the same recent judgement which went to appeal over Teletraffic wanting £800 expert witness costs.

If this is right, I am sure Paul (Safespeed) would like to know if this.

You are assuming the FPN was offered in the first place though.
The fine shouldn't be tied to the FPN value if it was never offered in the first place.
Costs awareded are a seperate issue to fines issued.

I do assume that an FPN was offered for 35 in a 30. I would say that is most probable, but of course not definate.

Surely you do not think however that the MAXIMUM POSSIBLE fine of £1000 is handed down for 5mph over the speed limit is proportional?

If nothing else, what do they give him for 37, or even 40?

[IT10]

Another way of 'discouraging' people from sticking up for their rights and challenging in court?

[herewego]

It seems fair to me that a fine should be related to income.

[justinp1]

herewego said:

It seems fair to me that a fine should be related to income.

So you agree that the maximum fine allowable should be given to someone who is just 5mph over the limit?

[herewego]

justinp1 said:

herewego said:

It seems fair to me that a fine should be related to income.

So you agree that the maximum fine allowable should be given to someone who is just 5mph over the limit?

No. I wouldn't prosecute that speed at all, but that isn't the issue, which is should the fine reflect income.

Edited by herewego on Saturday 9th December 13:40

[sparkythecat]

Tafia said:

How can this be right.

A guy was done for 35 in a 30 ( A548, N. Wales )and because he had a high salary, he was fined £1000 plus £60 costs.

So if my income is 2P per month, I get a free one?

How can this be just?

Pop star ar5ehole Pete Doherty was up on seven drugs charges last week and
was fined £700.

Can't believe he's short of a few bob.

[ATG]

If the fine is supposed to be a punishment, then clearly the level of a fine ought to take into account the wealth of the individual being fined. For example, £10 is lot of money to an OAP living on a state pension and sod all to someone on £100k. A fixed £10 fine would clearly be a much greater punishment for the OAP than for the high earner. The only justification for having fixed fines is the simplicity of the system. If you had to assess everyone's wealth before you could levy a £50 fine for littering, or a 50p fine for overdue library books, you'd never fine anyone at all.

[vonhosen]

justinp1 said:

vonhosen said:

justinp1 said:

Tafia said:

How can this be right.

A guy was done for 35 in a 30 ( A548, N. Wales )and because he had a high salary, he was fined £1000 plus £60 costs.

So if my income is 2P per month, I get a free one?

I think there is more to this:

To be in court he has most likely rejected a fixed penalty notice - £1000 fine looks like a suitable warning to others?

I am pretty sure that one of the tests of a reasonable fine is that the fine should be relative to FPN - this was highlighted in the same recent judgement which went to appeal over Teletraffic wanting £800 expert witness costs.

If this is right, I am sure Paul (Safespeed) would like to know if this.

You are assuming the FPN was offered in the first place though.
The fine shouldn't be tied to the FPN value if it was never offered in the first place.
Costs awareded are a seperate issue to fines issued.

I do assume that an FPN was offered for 35 in a 30. I would say that is most probable, but of course not definate.

Surely you do not think however that the MAXIMUM POSSIBLE fine of £1000 is handed down for 5mph over the speed limit is proportional?

The circumstances of the offence will matter in deciding that & you can't tell them from the speed.

justinp1 said:

If nothing else, what do they give him for 37, or even 40?

A different charge of dangerous driving possibly & a higher fine still as a result. As I say it's circumstances that will determine that.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 9th December 13:56

[vonhosen]

herewego said:

justinp1 said:

herewego said:

It seems fair to me that a fine should be related to income.

So you agree that the maximum fine allowable should be given to someone who is just 5mph over the limit?

No. I wouldn't prosecute that speed at all, but that isn't the issue, which is should the fine reflect income.

I may prosecute for that speed, if for instance I deemed 20mph excessive in the circumstances.

[justinp1]

vonhosen said:

justinp1 said:

vonhosen said:

justinp1 said:

Tafia said:

How can this be right.

A guy was done for 35 in a 30 ( A548, N. Wales )and because he had a high salary, he was fined £1000 plus £60 costs.

So if my income is 2P per month, I get a free one?

I think there is more to this:

To be in court he has most likely rejected a fixed penalty notice - £1000 fine looks like a suitable warning to others?

I am pretty sure that one of the tests of a reasonable fine is that the fine should be relative to FPN - this was highlighted in the same recent judgement which went to appeal over Teletraffic wanting £800 expert witness costs.

If this is right, I am sure Paul (Safespeed) would like to know if this.

You are assuming the FPN was offered in the first place though.
The fine shouldn't be tied to the FPN value if it was never offered in the first place.
Costs awareded are a seperate issue to fines issued.

I do assume that an FPN was offered for 35 in a 30. I would say that is most probable, but of course not definate.

Surely you do not think however that the MAXIMUM POSSIBLE fine of £1000 is handed down for 5mph over the speed limit is proportional?

The circumstances of the offence will matter in deciding that & you can't tell them from the speed.

justinp1 said:

If nothing else, what do they give him for 37, or even 40?

A different charge of dangerous driving possibly & a higher fine still as a result. As I say it's circumstances that will determine that.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 9th December 13:56

Of course the circumstances matter as well as the speed, however surely this would have been reflected in the 'points' given - yet this was the minimum allowed at 3.

It seems very abnormal to me to set the 'points' punishment which reflects the seriousness of the offence at the minimum possible for speeding yet the fine and maximum possible for speeding.

Thus as 3 points were given it is most likely that the speed was the only factor here - surely you cant be advocating a Dangerous Driving charge only based on speed for 37mph!?

[Dixie Dean]

Tafia said:

How can this be right.

A guy was done for 35 in a 30 ( A548, N. Wales )and because he had a high salary, he was fined £1000 plus £60 costs.

Can you provide a source for this information?

Edited by Dixie Dean on Saturday 9th December 15:56

[vonhosen]

justinp1 said:

vonhosen said:

justinp1 said:

vonhosen said:

justinp1 said:

Tafia said:

How can this be right.

A guy was done for 35 in a 30 ( A548, N. Wales )and because he had a high salary, he was fined £1000 plus £60 costs.

So if my income is 2P per month, I get a free one?

I think there is more to this:

To be in court he has most likely rejected a fixed penalty notice - £1000 fine looks like a suitable warning to others?

I am pretty sure that one of the tests of a reasonable fine is that the fine should be relative to FPN - this was highlighted in the same recent judgement which went to appeal over Teletraffic wanting £800 expert witness costs.

If this is right, I am sure Paul (Safespeed) would like to know if this.

You are assuming the FPN was offered in the first place though.
The fine shouldn't be tied to the FPN value if it was never offered in the first place.
Costs awareded are a seperate issue to fines issued.

I do assume that an FPN was offered for 35 in a 30. I would say that is most probable, but of course not definate.

Surely you do not think however that the MAXIMUM POSSIBLE fine of £1000 is handed down for 5mph over the speed limit is proportional?

The circumstances of the offence will matter in deciding that & you can't tell them from the speed.

justinp1 said:

If nothing else, what do they give him for 37, or even 40?

A different charge of dangerous driving possibly & a higher fine still as a result. As I say it's circumstances that will determine that.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 9th December 13:56

Of course the circumstances matter as well as the speed, however surely this would have been reflected in the 'points' given - yet this was the minimum allowed at 3.

It seems very abnormal to me to set the 'points' punishment which reflects the seriousness of the offence at the minimum possible for speeding yet the fine and maximum possible for speeding.

Thus as 3 points were given it is most likely that the speed was the only factor here - surely you cant be advocating a Dangerous Driving charge only based on speed for 37mph!?

Of course a dangerous driving charge wouldn't be based on the speed alone, but on the circumstances in which that speed was carried out. If the circumstances dictated that 37mph in those circumstances amounted to dangerous driving, then it would probably result in such a charge. However if the 37mph could be considered DWDCA & with the full circumstances the liekly penalty for that offence would be very similar to that given for a 37 in a 30 speeding offence, there is every likelyhood that the speeding offence charge would be preferred to the DWDCA one.

[herewego]

vonhosen said:

herewego said:

justinp1 said:

herewego said:

It seems fair to me that a fine should be related to income.

So you agree that the maximum fine allowable should be given to someone who is just 5mph over the limit?

No. I wouldn't prosecute that speed at all, but that isn't the issue, which is should the fine reflect income.

I may prosecute for that speed, if for instance I deemed 20mph excessive in the circumstances.

Well yes OK, but I think you're probably using the simple offence of speeding rather than the harder to enforce driving without due care? I mean the driver would probably be ignoring a serious risk?
I remember seeing a silly woman crossing a busy shopping road with a pram and a couple of loose kids in tow who got left behind half on the pavement. She had only reached the middle of the road when a woman driver ploughed through the middle of them but probably wasn't exceeding 30. She got away with it but my heart was in my mouth.

[turbobloke]

vonhosen said:

Tafia said:

How can this be right.

A guy was done for 35 in a 30 ( A548, N. Wales )and because he had a high salary, he was fined £1000 plus £60 costs.

So if my income is 2P per month, I get a free one?

There is a maximum fine for each offence. Within that maximum range all fines that are then issued are means tested.

Communism UK, roll up, roll up, if your family helped defeat fascism in a war or if you were part of the cold war which rid the world of elements of pinkoism...



















...tough 5h1t - pay up, shut up and fk off. This is BLiar's Britain now. Mind my jackboot little boy.

[grumbledoak]

Tafia said:

How can this be right.

A guy was done for 35 in a 30 ( A548, N. Wales )and because he had a high salary, he was fined £1000 plus £60 costs.

So if my income is 2P per month, I get a free one?

It isn't right - means tested fines are just more disguised revenue-raising. The punishment should be proportional to the crime, not the person committing it. Though in this case I would suspect the 'crime' that he was punished for was insisting on his right to a fair trial for the 'crime' they accused him of...