3 year driving disqualification for this

[All Line Rover]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-37340186

A driver who was being pursued by police dialled 999 to ask them to stop following him.
Bruce Dewey, 36, of no fixed abode, pleaded guilty at Chichester Crown Court to dangerous driving and to driving without a full driving licence or insurance.
He had been spotted by Sussex Police and pursued for about 50 minutes, during which he called 999 and asked police to stop following him.
He was jailed for 15 months and disqualified from driving for three years.

A 1.25 year jail sentence and 3 year driving qualification for the above behaviour.

I don't have any views on the jail sentence, but a 3 year disqualification? One has to wonder how someone in that mental state can be qualified to drive in the medium term, if ever.

I wonder if taxpayers will be footing the bill for the damage to the police vehicles?

 

[PHILIPE]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-37340186

A 1.25 year jail sentence and 3 year driving qualification for the above behaviour.

I don't have any views on the jail sentence, but a 3 year disqualification? One has to wonder how someone in that mental state can be qualified to drive in the medium term, if ever.

I wonder if taxpayers will be footing the bill for the damage to the police vehicles?

I believe the ban would start now, but should not start until released.

 

[transmanche]

I believe the ban would start now, but should not start until released.

I understand that regulations, which came into force in April 2015, made under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, changed that.

 

[AlterEgo]

If you read the article he wasn't qualified to drive anyway.

 

[All Line Rover]

If you read the article he wasn't qualified to drive anyway.

A disqualification does not depend on having a valid licence. I did not say that the reckless driver had his licence revoked.

 

[PermitToTravel]

Some other European countries frequently issue driving disqualifications with the condition that should the subject wish to regain their licence (or get one in the first place, in the case of this person) they'll need to sit an interview with a psychiatrist and be signed off as suitable for driving. It's not something we do here, but perhaps we ought.

 

[AlterEgo]

A disqualification does not depend on having a valid licence. I did not say that the reckless driver had his licence revoked.

No, but he still wasn't qualified to drive, so it doesn't materially change the driver's position.

It is a token and usually mandatory part of the sentence for offences like this.

 

[me123]

Presumably though it would also affect his ability to apply for license in the future. He won't be able to come out of prison and take driving lessons (which I'm sure won't make an iota of difference anyway).

I'm very much of the opinion that more serious offences in driving need more serious restrictions on the license holder. The points system is fine for minor speeding offences and the like, but for idiots like this I would like to see longer and permanent bans.

I'm quite surprised that there was no charge of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs; I can't imagine anyone who wasn't under the influence of something would be stupid enough to phone the police to ask them to stop chasing him. If he was indeed clean, then he should be jailed for dumb.

 

[AlterEgo]

Presumably though it would also affect his ability to apply for license in the future. He won't be able to come out of prison and take driving lessons (which I'm sure won't make an iota of difference anyway).

I'm very much of the opinion that more serious offences in driving need more serious restrictions on the license holder. The points system is fine for minor speeding offences and the like, but for idiots like this I would like to see longer and permanent bans.

I'm quite surprised that there was no charge of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs; I can't imagine anyone who wasn't under the influence of something would be stupid enough to phone the police to ask them to stop chasing him. If he was indeed clean, then he should be jailed for dumb.

Yes it would affect his ability to apply for another licence.

The offender drives anyway, it doesn't seem like having a licence or otherwise bothers him much!

It's difficult to know what to do with people like this. Prison won't sort them, they don't have any money, and you can drive a car without a licence until you get caught. Must be very frustrating for the police.

 

[Busaholic]

Presumably though it would also affect his ability to apply for license in the future. He won't be able to come out of prison and take driving lessons (which I'm sure won't make an iota of difference anyway).

I'm very much of the opinion that more serious offences in driving need more serious restrictions on the license holder. The points system is fine for minor speeding offences and the like, but for idiots like this I would like to see longer and permanent bans.

I'm quite surprised that there was no charge of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs; I can't imagine anyone who wasn't under the influence of something would be stupid enough to phone the police to ask them to stop chasing him. If he was indeed clean, then he should be jailed for dumb.

Apparently there is no upper limit set in law for driving disqualification, although nobody has ever been banned outright for life. Talking about car driving by the way, not sure about HGV/PCV.

 

[me123]

I find it particularly odd that "need to drive" or "drives professionally" (usually taxi drivers) are sometimes used (successfully) to reduce driving bans. In the first instance, I don't really care if you need to drive, if you're dangerous you shouldn't be on the roads. In the second, that actually makes the offence worse and I think should attract a harsher penalty. For both, they should have thought about that before they decided to start driving like a maniac.

 

[Busaholic]

I find it particularly odd that "need to drive" or "drives professionally" (usually taxi drivers) are sometimes used (successfully) to reduce driving bans. In the first instance, I don't really care if you need to drive, if you're dangerous you shouldn't be on the roads. In the second, that actually makes the offence worse and I think should attract a harsher penalty. For both, they should have thought about that before they decided to start driving like a maniac.

Absolutely

 

[transmanche]

Apparently there is no upper limit set in law for driving disqualification, although nobody has ever been banned outright for life.

Although rare, there have been instances of people banned for life from driving.

From BBC News:

A sheriff has banned a driver for life - to add to the 99 years of disqualifications he already has.

The sheriff said: "He is now coming up for 43 and has been disqualified since just before his 21st birthday. He has not been able to legally drive for 22 years. On 14 previous occasions he hasn't complied with that. We are talking about someone driving 60-plus miles from Aberfeldy to Kelty. That is not a particularly safe option for other road users. Wake up and smell the coffee, Mr Winsborough."

From the Daily Heil:

A lorry driver killed a cyclist while chatting on his mobile the morning after he had been on a mammoth drinks binge. Dennis Putz – who had a string of convictions including three for drink-driving and 20 for driving while disqualified – hit Catriona Patel as he accelerated away from traffic lights.

Putz admitted causing her death by careless driving and making a call on his mobile at the time of the accident but insisted he was using a hands-free kit. He denied the more serious charge of causing death by dangerous driving but a jury yesterday found him guilty. He was jailed for seven years and disqualified from driving for life.

 

[Bletchleyite]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-37340186

A 1.25 year jail sentence and 3 year driving qualification for the above behaviour.

I don't have any views on the jail sentence, but a 3 year disqualification? One has to wonder how someone in that mental state can be qualified to drive in the medium term, if ever.

I don't know. 3 years is a very long time. It seems proportionate to me.

I wonder if taxpayers will be footing the bill for the damage to the police vehicles?

Probably the MIB, which exists to pay out on mandatory third party risks for those who drive without insurance, and for which we all pay in our premia.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I find it particularly odd that "need to drive" or "drives professionally" (usually taxi drivers) are sometimes used (successfully) to reduce driving bans. In the first instance, I don't really care if you need to drive, if you're dangerous you shouldn't be on the roads. In the second, that actually makes the offence worse and I think should attract a harsher penalty. For both, they should have thought about that before they decided to start driving like a maniac.

I agree; the driver's profession should not be considered when determining the length of a ban. It should be determined solely on the gravity of the offence itself. If you are a professional driver, that's all the more reason to drive carefully and considerately.

 

[yorkie]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-37340186




A 1.25 year jail sentence and 3 year driving qualification for the above behaviour.

I don't have any views on the jail sentence, but a 3 year disqualification? One has to wonder how someone in that mental state can be qualified to drive in the medium term, if ever.

I wonder if taxpayers will be footing the bill for the damage to the police vehicles?

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

(No doubt someone will come along saying how it's actually a sensible sentence and defending our legal system! Well, whatever, I will pre-empt that by saying I will agree to disagree with you! Whatever the process, and whoever is to blame, the outcome is absurd in my opinion)

Edit: To clarify, yes I was thinking a much more longer driving ban!

 

[Kite159]

Will that 3 year disqualification actually stop him from driving within that period?

 

[me123]

Will that 3 year disqualification actually stop him from driving within that period?

Of course not. The only thing that will stop him driving is the prison sentence, mostly because he won't have access to vehicle rather than anything else.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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

(No doubt someone will come along saying how it's actually a sensible sentence and defending our legal system! Well, whatever, I will pre-empt that by saying I will agree to disagree with you! Whatever the process, and whoever is to blame, the outcome is absurd in my opinion)

I'm struggling to argue for that much more jail time to be honest, maybe I'd say closer to two-three years? This is excluding any substances which he was under the influence of (I suspect many, but there's been no charge for that as far as I can see).

Permanent driving ban is absolutely necessary in this case IMO.

 

[DarloRich]

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

(No doubt someone will come along saying how it's actually a sensible sentence and defending our legal system! Well, whatever, I will pre-empt that by saying I will agree to disagree with you! Whatever the process, and whoever is to blame, the outcome is absurd in my opinion)

Edit: To clarify, yes I was thinking a much more longer driving ban!

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.

 

[AlterEgo]

It would be interesting to know, out of those that commented on this thread, who can drive?

 

[GB]

I see nothing wrong with that sentence at all. I do wonder what sentence Yorkie feels appropriate.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

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.

On the plus side, most drivers who get a ban then have to sit the extended driving test before regaining their licence and the test instructors I know will apparently do their level best to give these people the hardest test they can to try and fail them.

 

[Johnuk123]

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

(No doubt someone will come along saying how it's actually a sensible sentence and defending our legal system! Well, whatever, I will pre-empt that by saying I will agree to disagree with you! Whatever the process, and whoever is to blame, the outcome is absurd in my opinion)

Edit: To clarify, yes I was thinking a much more longer driving ban!

As you say woefully inadequate, 5 years jail and a lifetime ban would have been about right.
Perhaps the posters saying the very lenient punishment is correct for a fool who drove like an idiot on the wrong side of the road through rush hour traffic have never encountered the effects of this sort of behaviour.

 

[Starmill]

I've never come across another community where so many people consider themselves credible experts on sentencing. You must all be so very well-researched in this field, and know all about the different effects, costs and results of different types of sentences, the cost and efficacy and morality of prison, and the balance in sentences which are a punishment for a crime, impose reparations for a crime and which rehabilitate offenders.

How ever do you all find the time to be so well informed on this in addition to all of your railway awareness?

 

[DarloRich]

As you say woefully inadequate, 5 years jail and a lifetime ban would have been about right.
Perhaps the posters saying the very lenient punishment is correct for a fool who drove like an idiot on the wrong side of the road through rush hour traffic have never encountered the effects of this sort of behaviour.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm seems like flaming tbh. Why do you think a lifetime ban would be appropriate? Why do you think 5 years jail would be appropriate? Sadly, being a "fool" is not (yet) a criminal offence.

Dangerous driving carries a maximum sentence of 2 years at Crown Court, an obligatory ban of at least a year and an unlimited fine. It is worth pointing out the criminal pleaded guilty thus earning a reduction in tariff as is standard in all criminal cases. Without injury to a third party I am unclear what else the criminal could have been charged with. Are you aware of any aggravating factors or factors given in mitigation?

It is very easy to criticise sentences based on nothing more than gut feeling or mob justice tendencies. This one seems about right.

 

[Starmill]

It's breathtakingly arrogant to think that you know more than the court, the judge or the professionals about how to sentence offenders. They have all of the facts and you have what you read in the paper. Even worse is when you present your own opinions as fact, or try to preempt a reasonable counter to your inexpert views by saying that you know better. Personally I don't know much about sentencing other than that it must be incredibly difficult to get right, especially with limited resources, and that it is not carried out the way some members here would like it to be - and for that I am thankful.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Dangerous driving is an offence that is punished according to how much damage you do to someone, not how objectively dangerous your driving is. Of course it was more luck than judgment but he didn't hit anyone and he didn't hurt anyone, so I don't really see how they could have given him much more time. As DarloRich says, the maximum sentence is two years imprisonment and you get up to 33% discount if you plead guilty.

ETA Interestingly Yorkie, the Government did a study a few years ago using online software, setting out various hypothetical situations. Only 16% of respondents imposed a more severe sentence than the judge. Almost half gave a more lenient sentence, as the general public tend to be more receptive to sob stories (as they don't hear them all the time).

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ou_be_the_Judge_website_experiences__web_.pdf

 

[DarloRich]

Is Dangerous Driving still tryable either way?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Is Dangerous Driving still tryable either way?

Yep, can be tried in either the Mags or the Crown Court. So can causing injury by dangerous driving. Death by dangerous driving can only be tried in Crown Court.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/...guidance_on_prosecuting_cases_of_bad_driving/

 

[All Line Rover]

More reassuring statistics today (from an RAC survey) regarding the behaviour of the average motorist: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37370828 (also http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-36807746).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Dangerous driving is an offence that is punished according to how much damage you do to someone, not how objectively dangerous your driving is. Of course it was more luck than judgment but he didn't hit anyone and he didn't hurt anyone, so I don't really see how they could have given him much more time. As DarloRich says, the maximum sentence is two years imprisonment and you get up to 33% discount if you plead guilty.

One might alternatively share the view that stronger preventative sentencing (driving bans, not jail sentences) would be better than waiting for someone to be killed or injured.

 

[AlterEgo]

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

As long as your vehicle is insured and taxed (to anyone - doesn't even have to be you), you are unlikely to be stopped on the roads by a policeman for quite some time.

I've driven for over ten years, probably 200,000 miles, never been stopped by a police officer. I could have driven without a licence the whole time.