3 year driving disqualification for this

[All Line Rover]

But banning drivers doesn't stop them from driving!!!

In the sense that a ban can simply be flouted? True, but one could go on to suggest that any breach of a driving ban should be subject to substantially more severe punishment (e.g. destruction of the car that was driven if it was driven with the consent of the owner, or a prison sentence where the car was stolen and the driver has no income or capital).

I'm sure you exercise the highest standard of care when driving, but perhaps a person who previously drove negligently enough to deserve a driving ban, might again drive negligently if flouting that driving ban, such as to arouse suspicion in a police officer even if the licence plate indicates the vehicle to be insured.

 

[yorkie]

Permanent driving ban is absolutely necessary in this case IMO.

Absolutely.

May we have the benefit of your years of legal experience, training, knowledge and in depth involvement with the case in question to determine what a suitable ban would be? Please could you also adduce your supporting reasoning? Perhaps you should apply to become a judge. You could start by applying to be a magistrate and then enforce the maximum sentences allowed under the law in all cases.

How predictable. I knew you'd be along to say this, but I am certain most of us would not want an idiot like this driving again in just a few years time, and I know we just have to accept that a minority of people will disagree with the majority. Well, what's new?!

 

[DarloRich]

Absolutely.

How predictable. I knew you'd be along to say this, but I am certain most of us would not want an idiot like this driving again in just a few years time, and I know we just have to accept that a minority of people will disagree with the majority. Well, what's new?!

I note, predictably, that you seem unwilling to defend or explain your position. That often seems to happen when you are challenged, especially on legal matters. You seem to expect people to simply nod sagely with your pronouncements and applaud. I will therefore ask again. Upon what do you base your suggestion that:

"The sentences handed out to this sort of individual are woefully inadequate. It's ridiculous"

Also what if this individual turned out to be a terribly decent person such as yourself? Should they serve a lesser sentence? Could you clarify which social orders deserve longer terms of imprisonment based upon their standing in society?

 

[GB]

In the sense that a ban can simply be flouted? True, but one could go on to suggest that any breach of a driving ban should be subject to substantially more severe punishment (e.g. destruction of the car that was driven if it was driven with the consent of the owner, or a prison sentence where the car was stolen and the driver has no income or capital).

I'm sure you exercise the highest standard of care when driving, but perhaps a person who previously drove negligently enough to deserve a driving ban, might again drive negligently if flouting that driving ban, such as to arouse suspicion in a police officer even if the licence plate indicates the vehicle to be insured.

Driving when banned already does convey a more harsher sentence if caught then simply driving without a license. To what degree tho I do not know.

 

[90019]

It is even more absurd when you get kids of about 14 who have stolen cars, getting driving bans, when they can't even legally drive.

Though the ban doesn't start until they're old enough to get a licence.

 

[yorkie]

I note, predictably, that you seem unwilling to defend or explain your position.

So, someone drives incredibly dangerously, including driving towards oncoming traffic, and is pursued by police for almost an hour, puts many lives in danger, has the audacity to dial 999 during the event asking not to be chased, and you ask me to justify why I think they should be banned for longer than three years?

Are you serious?! I mean, isn't it obvious? Do you want someone that dangerous to be back on the road any time soon? Why should they be? Driving a car is not a human right, never has been and never should be!

 

[Starmill]

I don't understand. They've been banned from driving. What's so ludicrous? That they might drive while banned? How would you enforce that?

This is nothing but an "expert" court of 'you should go to prison for this long because it amuses me'.

But I don't want to pay the necessary taxes to fund that, obviously.

 

[yorkie]

Then they should go back to jail for a much longer time if they flouted it again!

 

[DarloRich]

So, someone drives incredibly dangerously, including driving towards oncoming traffic, and is pursued by police for almost an hour, puts many lives in danger, has the audacity to dial 999 during the event asking not to be chased, and you ask me to justify why I think they should be banned for longer than three years?

Are you serious?! I mean, isn't it obvious? Do you want someone that dangerous to be back on the road any time soon? Why should they be? Driving a car is not a human right, never has been and never should be!

That the man was driving like a dangerous knob is hardly an issue! I assume you, knowing all of the facts of the case, have graded any evidence offered in mitigation such as the obvious mental health issues and the guilty plea.

You will also note that perhaps luckily, no one was hurt. That is the key to long sentences in motoring offenses. That said, I wonder how you or I would cope with a 15 month custodial sentence.

Sadly the law and the criminal justice system, for anyone with even a passing acquaintance with it, is simply not as black and white as people like you wish to suggest. Perhaps you should volunteer as a magistrate if you don't like the results you see in the media.

 

[yorkie]

Just because no-one was hurt doesn't mean the sentence is right. If the system doesn't allow an appropriate sentence then the system is broken!

And the system clearly is broken. A recent example:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/mum-glassed-woman-dressed-michael-8835211

A MUM glassed by a woman dressed as Michael Jackson said she was shocked the thug had escaped a jail sentence.

Pamela Butler admitted hurling a glass jar into Marife Libres’s face during a racist attack at a tribute night in Edinburgh ’s Corn Exchange.

Butler wore a Jacko-style military jacket, hot pants and knee-length socks when she left Faye with a wound that needed 15 stitches.

If you still think the system isn't broken then quite frankly I don't know what to say. And no, I don't think I need to justify why the sentences for dangerous acts should be higher; on the contrary those who are on the side of the offenders are those who should be made to explain themselves!

 

[DarloRich]

Then they should go back to jail for a much longer time if they flouted it again!

and where shall we put all of these people? The prison system is full to bursting and the terribly decent folk don't seem to want new prisons built near them or to pay for them to be built somewhere else.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Just because no-one was hurt doesn't mean the sentence is right. If the system doesn't allow an appropriate sentence then the system is broken!

so what should the sentence have been and why?

 

[yorkie]

I'd be happy to pay a bit more for more appropriate sentencing (I'm sure I've told you this before, so I don't know why there is a suggestion that I am not), but actually some sentences should probably be reduced, which could counter-act the obvious requirement to lock up dangerous or violent offenders for longer.

 

[DarloRich]

I am more than happy to lock up really dangerous and violent criminals for a long time. I just don't think this guy was. He was a prat with some obvious issues.

 

[AlterEgo]

Then they should go back to jail for a much longer time if they flouted it again!

Prison often turns people into worse criminals, because they associate with criminals 24/7. It doesn't necessarily rehabilitate them. The solution for everything can't just be to imprison people.

One day a future generation will look back at prisons and think they were used woefully during our generation.

 

[yorkie]

I am more than happy to lock up really dangerous and violent criminals for a long time.

That's not my recollection of previous disagreements we've had on this subject, but maybe you've mellowed to the idea

I just don't think this guy was. He was a prat with some obvious issues.

OK no, not violent, but certainly very dangerous. There are far too many dangerous people on the roads and far more should be done about it.

People who do not know someone who has died, or been seriously injured, by a dangerous driver may struggle to understand why it is vital that sentences are appropriate.

If he was driving dangerously for a short period of time, then 3 years may - I will reluctantly say - be sufficient. But this guy was acting incredibly dangerously evading the police for almost an hour and showed unbelievable arrogance and disregard for others, why should they be even considered to be able to start driving in 3 years time? it's bonkers!

 

[All Line Rover]

and where shall we put all of these people? The prison system is full to bursting and the terribly decent folk don't seem to want new prisons built near them or to pay for them to be built somewhere else.

As I said at the beginning of this thread, I don't have a view on the appropriateness of the prison sentence. A longer driving ban would not incur any cost to the state, unless it is flouted and the state then decides to imprison should there be no other feasible way of preventing the individual from driving.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That the man was driving like a dangerous knob is hardly an issue! I assume you, knowing all of the facts of the case, have graded any evidence offered in mitigation such as the obvious mental health issues and the guilty plea.

The personal circumstances of the driver are likely to have little bearing on the danger posed by his reckless driving to the public, as seen in the police footage shared by the BBC. However, I would have thought that "mental health issues" would not be used in support of a shorter driving ban!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If he was driving dangerously for a short period of time, then 3 years may - I will reluctantly say - be sufficient. But this guy was acting incredibly dangerously evading the police for almost an hour and showed unbelievable arrogance and disregard for others, why should they be even considered to be able to start driving in 3 years time? it's bonkers!

I believe that a 3 year driving ban would - in principle, regardless of current sentencing practice - be more appropriate for prolonged usage (longer than "I'm driving, I'll speak to you later") of a mobile phone while driving.

 

[transmanche]

That the man was driving like a dangerous knob is hardly an issue! I assume you, knowing all of the facts of the case, have graded any evidence offered in mitigation such as the obvious mental health issues and the guilty plea.

I may have misunderstood you here (so apologies if I have), but are you suggesting that an offender's mental health should be taken into account when deciding the length of driving ban they should serve? As in, he should receive a shorter driving ban because of his mental health issues?

 

[Starmill]

I'd love to see the evidence on the efficacy of Prison, given some forum members are absolutely clear that they know who should go there and how long for.

However, I wonder if those who claim there's a fundamental problem with our current use of the prison system might like to create a new thread, setting out their case with evidence...

Ideally a full set of proposed new sentencing standards, with estimates for what this would do to the prison population and how much this would cost. If they can't stretch to that, what about some solid reasoning on how the current system is failing and how best it could be shifted to better suit as yet unspecified objectives? Certainly this would be an improvement over "I'm sure someone will try to defend the decisions made by experts with years of experience and who must balance the many facets of justice with resources available, rather than just listen to me instead."

 

[transmanche]

I believe that a 3 year driving ban would - in principle, regardless of current sentencing practice - be more appropriate for prolonged usage (longer than "I'm driving, I'll speak to you later") of a mobile phone while driving.

I disagree. Where would you set the cut-off? 10 seconds? 15 seconds? Even such a short telephone call can prove enough of a distraction to cause a fatal collision.

Just the other day I remonstrated with a driver who parked on a zig-zag line outside a school. "I'm only stopping for two minutes!" was his response. "Ah that's OK then" I replied, "it's a good thing that children only get killed when a car has been parked there for more than two minutes and that they're totally safe until then."

If it's dangerous, it's dangerous full stop. Not dangerous after a certain period of time. No excuses.

 

[All Line Rover]

I disagree. Where would you set the cut-off? 10 seconds? 15 seconds? Even such a short telephone call can prove enough of a distraction to cause a fatal collision.

Just the other day I remonstrated with a driver who parked on a zig-zag line outside a school. "I'm only stopping for two minutes!" was his response. "Ah that's OK then" I replied, "it's a good thing that children only get killed when a car has been parked there for more than two minutes and that they're totally safe until then."

If it's dangerous, it's dangerous full stop. Not dangerous after a certain period of time. No excuses.

I meant to exclude momentary lapses of judgement, as otherwise I expect I would be accused of being too harsh! After being on the phone for a few minutes, one should be fully aware of what one is doing, and therefore complicit in it.

 

[DarloRich]

As I said at the beginning of this thread, I don't have a view on the appropriateness of the prison sentence. A longer driving ban would not incur any cost to the state, unless it is flouted and the state then decides to imprison should there be no other feasible way of preventing the individual from driving.

Indeed

The personal circumstances of the driver are likely to have little bearing on the danger posed by his reckless driving to the public, as seen in the police footage shared by the BBC. However, I would have thought that "mental health issues" would not be used in support of a shorter driving ban!

However they will be offered in mitigation as will the guilty plea. The long standing reward for a guilty plea is a reduced sentence. I am sure you would want your defence to try to mitigate any sentence you were looking at should you find yourself before the court.

I may have misunderstood you here (so apologies if I have), but are you suggesting that an offender's mental health should be taken into account when deciding the length of driving ban they should serve? As in, he should receive a shorter driving ban because of his mental health issues?

Mitigation will be offered in relation to the overall sentence of which the ban is part. Driving whilst disqualified will see the miscreant return to court in custody asap with the very real prospect of a prison sentence if for nothing other than disrespecting the court.

Many of them are stupid enough to drive thier own cars and get caught on ANPR cameras!

That's not my recollection of previous disagreements we've had on this subject, but maybe you've mellowed to the idea

OK no, not violent, but certainly very dangerous. There are far too many dangerous people on the roads and far more should be done about it.

People who do not know someone who has died, or been seriously injured, by a dangerous driver may struggle to understand why it is vital that sentences are appropriate.

If he was driving dangerously for a short period of time, then 3 years may - I will reluctantly say - be sufficient. But this guy was acting incredibly dangerously evading the police for almost an hour and showed unbelievable arrogance and disregard for others, why should they be even considered to be able to start driving in 3 years time? it's bonkers!

However, The important point is that, luckily, no one was injured or killed. Sadly, under the law that is the aggravating factor. Dangerous Driving is defined as:

Dangerous driving is defined in law as:

• Driving that falls far below the standard of a competent and careful driver; and
• Driving that would obviously seem dangerous to a competent and careful driver.

As he was convicted of that offence the sentence seems acceptable. The ban could have been longer however we don't know the details of the case so it is very hard to judge the appropriateness or otherwise of the ban

As I said if you don't like it do something about it. Volunteer to be a magistrate. You could have tried this case. You could have determined the sentence.

The Magistrates Courts are crying out for extra judges. You need no formal qualifications and simply need to be a decent citizen. That option will be open to almost all adult members of this board. Put your principles into operation and take part in the system.