Freddie Far too Flipping fast Flintoff...

[Bonefishblues]

A better system might be devised at several levels. Considering it as part of the disposal of a summary trial - ie as now, then it needs a clearer and narrower definition of exceptional hardship than seems to be recognised at present, and the defendant should be required to submit documentary proof of the matters on which the application depends. Not at all easy to provide, of course, especially in support of an application depending on assertions such as the defendant's children being exposed to publicity.

Then a simple legislative change to tighten the existing rules on exceptional hardship, yes? I think I suggested that earlier. Magistrates have the right to require an applicant to evidence it now, but I suspect it's seldom used - it could simply be mandated, putting the onus on the Defendant.

No rolleyes required here

[Bonefishblues]

What would a better system look like?

IMO, a better system would make exceptional hardship truly exceptional.s (e.g. taking someone to A&E).

And/or, where there is an exceptionally rare case where hardship justifies the offender not losing their license, they get given the choice of losing their license or getting a truly massive fine. e.g. 10%+ of expected yearly income. And/or additional penalties like loads of community service, etc. So keeping you license for "hardship" reasons would mean a significantly worse punishment. That will separate those who really need to drive from those looking for an excuse.

Ian

If someone who would suffer truly exceptional hardship couldn't afford to pay a truly massive fine, or take loads of time out to serve their community, how could that be termed just(ice)?

[Psamathe]

IMO, a better system would make exceptional hardship truly exceptional.s (e.g. taking someone to A&E).

And/or, where there is an exceptionally rare case where hardship justifies the offender not losing their license, they get given the choice of losing their license or getting a truly massive fine. e.g. 10%+ of expected yearly income. And/or additional penalties like loads of community service, etc. So keeping you license for "hardship" reasons would mean a significantly worse punishment. That will separate those who really need to drive from those looking for an excuse.

Ian

If someone who would suffer truly exceptional hardship couldn't afford to pay a truly massive fine, or take loads of time out to serve their community, how could that be termed just(ice)?

There must be means whereby a harder punishment can be achieved. I can't envisage any circumstances where somebody cannot undertake community service, maybe spread over a very long period if really necessary. In fact I'd rather see things like community service rather than massive fines as a massive fine will be a drop in the ocean for the wealthy and beyond impossible for the less well off. Might be easier to use something along the lines of community service.

Ian

[[XAP]Bob]

Exceptional hardship could just possiblybe called upon for a "single instance" topping up (I.e. all offences commited before the first points are awarded) but frankly if it would cause hardship then the nine points on your license should be sufficient detterent.

[reohn2]

I don't know, the Court thought, in conjunction with the protection of his childrens' privacy, sufficient to justify allowing his plea of exceptional hardship.

Why would his children's privacy have anything to do with anything?????

That's not the point at issue. I'm sure he could, but he didn't plead that, so it's not relevant, unless you're proposing a different law for rich vs poor?

But it's very relevant in this case,people who own Bentleys can afford a driver when they're unable to drive.

Sure, and the same thing could be said of someone who was a sole carer of someone who needed driving to dyalisis (sp!) every week. Nope, ban them, they knew the consequences before they done it guv. Fatuous example, but intended to show that what we are debating is where the line is drawn, not the existence of a line.

The inability to get to dialysis could be considered a real hardship that's true,and would need careful consideration by the court,but then so would keeping one's licence by not offending would be a real consideration for a kidney failure patient or their carer.
It's known as responsibility

Then ban them for life, end of.Easy, except that would make bad law, one suspects.

Of course it would and I'm not advocating banning them for life nor ever have!
But under the totting up procedure they know the penalty,and six months ain't the end of the world,and a lot less of a hindrance for a rich person who can afford to make other arrangements.

Of course they are capable, clearly, it means less right foot application. How about we took a rehabilitative and educative approach - that might work. As you know I also wander around a couple of motoring forums. Here's an interesting thing, those who are full of bravado being offered the opportunity for one of the "Noddy" Speed Awareness courses quite often come back on the Forum and grudgingly admit it was an eye-opener. Just a thought. I suspect AF is a devoted Father and Husband, as many, indeed most are. He has a reputation as a bit of a daft lad, but with a good heart. Wonder how he might respond? It's also a cost-neutral approach. BTW, somewhat nonplussed at 3 points being somehow OK - there's that line again!? (3 points on 2 separate occasions over 30 years, since you ask )

I suspect most speeding offenders have had the opportunity for a 'Noddy' speed awareness course and either attended or paid the fine and took the points,but what if they took the points plus the fine and had to attend 'Noddy's' without the choice!

Yes I agree, persistent offenders who show that they are unwilling to modify behaviour should absolutely be treated in this way.

[/quote]
Then what are we debating?
Flintoff= serial offender=ban,end of.

By the way, once again, for the record. I think driving standards need significant improvement in the UK. Where we do differ is how best to achieve that, and I've been interested in the whole speed debate on the Forum, which I think is in danger of missing the wider point.

The wider point is that people who are serial speeders are more likely to either cause or be involved in RTI's(note not 'A's) and are more likely to commit other motoring offences.
Alarm bells should ring in the judicial system when a driver offends serially,it clearly doesn't.
But a sob story does.

BTW I didn't know you were on other driving forums,but I did suspect you were Freddy Flintoff for a short while

[Bonefishblues]

I can categorically state I am not Flintoff

Are we at a point of impasse again? You want the Judicial process to produce a different outcome in this case, I'm saying he's used the process which is open to all on an equal basis, and the outcome is the outcome. You can't understand why the outcome is as it is, I can. You think his wealth is germane, I think it's irrelevant. You think because he's well-known, somebody might have cut him a break/been influenced by this somewhere, or at the least he has afforded a better lawyer, I can see that being in the public eye and wanting to keep your kids out of it might be relevant to include in a plea of mitigation.

We both want better driving standards. You see speed as being of critical importance, I see poor driving, of which speed is but one factor, as the key issue. You want a more punitive approach than currently, I think it needs to be tackled in a more holistic way, including more policing, better road design, and better driver education & rehabilitation (and in that regard, I think that forcing drivers to take points, and a fine, and pay to go on a Speed Awareness course might not achieve the desired result, BTW). If drivers didn't respond to that more spohisticated regime, then I would have no compunction in removing them from the roads, you think that means I'm agreeing with you.

I've paraphrased you completely accurately, you think I've completely misrepresented your views

I'm sure we'll return to the theme anon!

[thirdcrank]

It seems to me that the contradiction within the present system is the combination of superficially certain punishment with escape hatches. Although the calculations involved in totting-up can seem complicated, the underlying consequence is clear, or it should be. Few defendants can be surprised when they reach the stage where they face losing their licence, but part of the deterrent effect of the "inevitable" punishment is lost because it's not inevitable, even in cases such as the one we are discussing. Automatic sentences of any type tend to produce some hard cases but that's inherent in automatic sentences. There must be some cases where the circumstances which would cause exceptional hardship arise between the commission of the last totting-up offence and the court hearing, and but they would be few; perhaps there's room for clemency there. Otherwise, if the legislators want the three-strikes-and-out thing to work, then "exceptional hardship" would have to go.

That risks taking us back to courts using "special reasons" to avoid totting-up bans. I'd suggest that that that provision should also be curtailed or even removed altogether. AFAIK, The most frequent reason for findings of special reasons not to endorse a licence involve drivers of emergency vehicles. I think there's been a significant change of public opinion over things like police chases and this suggestion would reflect that. Anyway, in a case where offending was somehow in the public interest, it's the duty of the CPS not to prosecute if the public interest criteria are not met.

I draw a comparison with the breathalyser, where the almost inevitable 12 mos ban seems to be a strong deterrent, with the totting-up system where the deterrent is undermined.

[reohn2]

I can categorically state I am not Flintoff

Ah! then I claim my £5

Are we at a point of impasse again? You want the Judicial process to produce a different outcome in this case, I'm saying he's used the process which is open to all on an equal basis, and the outcome is the outcome.

I'm saying the outcome in this case,and that of many other serial speeders is too lenient and such penalties as these are seen by such offenders as a driving hazard,nothing more.

You can't understand why the outcome is as it is, I can. You think his wealth is germane, I think it's irrelevant.

IMHO his wealth has enabled him to employ a lawyer(at great cost no doubt)to reduce his sentence,which due to a lack of such wealth,other serial offenders don't have,so in that respect yes his wealth did influence the outcome.

I can see that being in the public eye and wanting to keep your kids out of it might be relevant to include in a plea of mitigation.

I can't for a wealthy man who can afford to make other arrangements for transport,his children presumably need the anonymity and security of being transported in the family Bentley

We both want better driving standards.

Agreed

You see speed as being of critical importance, I see poor driving, of which speed is but one factor, as the key issue. You want a more punitive approach than currently, I think it needs to be tackled in a more holistic way, including more policing, better road design, and better driver education & rehabilitation(and in that regard, I think that forcing drivers to take points, and a fine, and pay to go on a Speed Awareness course might not achieve the desired result, BTW). If drivers didn't respond to that more spohisticated regime, then I would have no compunction in removing them from the roads, you think that means I'm agreeing with you.

You're assuming a lot of me.
I see speeding as one of the many bad driving habits that's been allowed for too long without meaningful punishment or rehabilitation,and I agree it does need to be tackled holistically.The fines being doled out by the courts for motoring crime are a joke IMO.
Nothing focuses the mind more than cost,whether that be money or time,I'm advocating both.

IMO more and better policing would be a huge step forward,but it seems the UK can't afford it

We seem to have a culture of driving being a human right,where bad driving and the odd crash are a fact of life,where reporting crime gets little done and where people talk of the ''roads being dangerous'' there is little being done to address that situation IMO,and all the time driving standards slide.
Freddy Flintoff is but one more indication of that situation.

[Bonefishblues]

I agree with much of the sentiment of that, but I'd make a couple of comments about the detail and the conclusions drawn.

You state that bans have a strong deterrent against drink driving. I don't see it in that way. I suspect but cannot prove that the chance of detection is low, in any event, and for the law to be a deterrent there has to be a reasonable prospect of being caught. I think what has changed, and very markedly is the public's attitude to drunk driving. It is simply unacceptable to have three or four pints and then climb into your car in the way it used to be. I think that's what has changed behaviour. I see threads on driving forums along the lines of "I saw x climb into his car...and I rang 999, did I do the right thing?" The answer is universally yes.

Now there's a really powerful deterrent, and a good example of personal and societal regulation, which is the big prize (strong parallels with the issue of race discrimination, perhaps). We need perhaps to look at this and learn some lessons more broadly re driving behaviour in other respects, more broadly than just speed. I think if presented in the right way it would find a ready audience.

Transposing that to the narrower issue of speed, I really can't see that continuing to do more of the same, only harsher is going to have the effect desired. It's time to do something different or at least in addition, I'd suggest. Working with road users and motorists in particular on the broader issue of driving standards would IMHO produce more traction, to mutual benefit.

When poor driving and inappropriate speed are as unacceptable as drunk driving then we'd be in a happier place. It's my sense that such an approach might find a ready audience.

I see also that my new mate has posted whilst I've been thrashing a tablet rather slowly, but I think the points reasonably apply to both posts. Too narrow a focus risks further alienating a group with whom we need common cause.

[reohn2]

You state that bans have a strong deterrent against drink driving.

?????

I suspect but cannot prove that the chance of detection is low, in any event, and for the law to be a deterrent there has to be a reasonable prospect of being caught.

Which is a case for more traffic police is it not?
And once caught penalties that fit the crime wouldn't go amiss either!

I think what has changed, and very markedly is the public's attitude to drunk driving.

A similar attitude to all road crime would be a huge step forward IMHO,but it it need for the police to take seriously the reporting of such crimes,I have a list of my reporting bad driving,with witnesses when nothing has been done.

Now there's a really powerful deterrent, and a good example of personal and societal regulation, which is the big prize (strong parallels with the issue of race discrimination, perhaps). We need perhaps to look at this and learn some lessons more broadly re driving behaviour in other respects, more broadly than just speed. I think if presented in the right way it would find a ready audience.

We need an effective police force and a judicial system to administer meaningful penalties.

Transposing that to the narrower issue of speed, I really can't see that continuing to do more of the same, only harsher is going to have the effect desired. It's time to do something different or at least in addition, I'd suggest. Working with road users and motorists in particular on the broader issue of driving standards would IMHO produce more traction, to mutual benefit.

When poor driving and inappropriate speed are as unacceptable as drunk driving then we'd be in a happier place. It's my sense that such an approach might find a ready audience.

Things have been let slide,police forces have been diminished and the courts have pandered to the criminals,the sooner the law is enforced the better IMHO.

Too narrow a focus risks further alienating a group with whom we need common cause.

The 'group' is the whole of society which will benefit from lawbreakers being punished accordingly.
Those that can afford the lawyers to get them off lightly for their crimes should have that choice removed for certain cut and dried road crime where standard penalties should be enforced.

[Bonefishblues]

You state that bans have a strong deterrent against drink driving.

?????
Replying to the post above yours where a parallel was drawn with drunk driving

I suspect but cannot prove that the chance of detection is low, in any event, and for the law to be a deterrent there has to be a reasonable prospect of being caught.

Which is a case for more traffic police is it not?
Yes, absolutely. That's my ideal scenario, too. It won't happen though

And once caught penalties that fit the crime wouldn't go amiss either!
Yes, absolutely.

I think what has changed, and very markedly is the public's attitude to drunk driving.

A similar attitude to all road crime would be a huge step forward IMHO,but it it need for the police to take seriously the reporting of such crimes,I have a list of my reporting bad driving,with witnesses when nothing has been done.
Yes, agree. However it's the Police who are the servants. They need to be told what their priorities are, and those priorities shared by others - and given the resources to do something about it, otherwise such actions are akin to doing something distatsteful in the wind...

Now there's a really powerful deterrent, and a good example of personal and societal regulation, which is the big prize (strong parallels with the issue of race discrimination, perhaps). We need perhaps to look at this and learn some lessons more broadly re driving behaviour in other respects, more broadly than just speed. I think if presented in the right way it would find a ready audience.

We need an effective police force and a judicial system to administer meaningful penalties.
We need more than that, I think. Very few people were prosecuted for Crimes under the then Race Relations Act, and yet there was a wholesale shift in attitudes and behaviours. It shows it's possible, but merely penalising, however punitively, won't do it IMHO.

Transposing that to the narrower issue of speed, I really can't see that continuing to do more of the same, only harsher is going to have the effect desired. It's time to do something different or at least in addition, I'd suggest. Working with road users and motorists in particular on the broader issue of driving standards would IMHO produce more traction, to mutual benefit.

When poor driving and inappropriate speed are as unacceptable as drunk driving then we'd be in a happier place. It's my sense that such an approach might find a ready audience.

Things have been let slide,police forces have been diminished and the courts have pandered to the criminals,the sooner the law is enforced the better IMHO.
Then the Legislators should instruct those who apply the law, who are applying the current priorities as they are drawn. It will not happen without that intervention.

Too narrow a focus risks further alienating a group with whom we need common cause.

The 'group' is the whole of society which will benefit from lawbreakers being punished accordingly.
Those that can afford the lawyers to get them off lightly for their crimes should have that choice removed for certain cut and dried road crime where standard penalties should be enforced.
The Group I was alluding to is road users in general, and car drivers in particular. I see plenty evidence on other Forums of outdated and foolish attitudes v-a-v cyclists being addressed by a majority of sensible road users. We need to have a more inclusive approach.
You're still cross about Freddie, aren't you. Poor bloke seems to be a symbol of all that's wrong. Lots of people "get off" citing exceptional hardship, as I showed in an earlier post - can they all be affording expensive advocates? You have more faith in lawyers than I do

[reohn2]

The problem with the police as I see it is that moral is in their boots because manpower and working conditions are woefully inadequate,leading to response policing ie;waiting until a crime happens before any kind of action is taken there is no 'presence'(unless you attend a football match,etc) or crime prevention from what I can see.
Whilst I agree to an attitude change within society toward motor crime,and it seems drivers also need educating as to what's acceptable to the rest of society,in the meantime the offenders need to be brought to book and penalties that fit the crime.Once that is in place with no wriggle room for offenders,perhaps things will change.As it is the will to change anything is being overruled by statistics,however statistic are only that and don't show the real picture,which is one of aggression and lawbreaking on a grand scale.
BTW racial discrimination is hard to prove unless very overt and witnessed,unlike road crime,which is simple with covert cameras in the right places.What I always find laughable if it weren't so tragic is mobile speed camera vans that announce themselves to all and sundry by plastering the outside with hi-vis tape and big camera decals and if they weren't,motorists would cry foul
How can we ever get anywhere with that kind of attitude from the legislators,don't tell the beggers you're there and you cop more criminals!
The present attitude is tantamount to the police waiting outside of a bank when they know there's to be a robbery and stopping and warning the robbers before they go in then sending them on there way with a telling off!

There is no group other than an artificial perception,look up the word interbeing we are all in it,whether we drive or not as we all have to use the roads if only by crossing them on foot and as such they affect us all as do the criminals using them.

You're still cross about Freddie, aren't you.

I'm cross about Freddie because he represents the norm,in that if others had the wherewithal to employ the kind of people he has to plead his case they would,because it works!
They don't see him as a criminal but as someone who beat the system,that's the problem!
YMHOV but I'd suggest you're in the minority and also suspect Freddie may share my POV .
Anyway Boney,I'm going to leave it at that.

[Bonefishblues]

In summary, we absolutely agree on the end we'd like, but we (still) have dramatically different views on the means to achieve it.

I take some solace that legions of minority views have eventually been proven right.

[Bicycler]

I think that his wealth is relevant. If he claims that his personal circumstances mean that he would suffer exceptional hardship by being banned from driving then I think that can only be properly assessed by considering the other options open to him. If he can afford to pay to be driven by motor transport where there is no other alternative then it is no longer an exceptional hardship to be prohibited from driving himself

[thirdcrank]

I agree with much of the sentiment of that...

I overlooked this post before.

There's a wider debate about the deterrent effects of "deterrent" punishments, of course, but my point here is that threats which are not carried out are quickly ignored. This applies as much to law enforcement as it does to bringing up children. In an earlier post on this thread or the other about this case, I commented that the beak had told the defendant that this excuse would not work again and I suggested that he was wrong. Sentencing legislation isn't one of my strong points but nobody has responded to my invitation to correct me.

I'm sure there's a place for driver education.

The regrettable collapse in traffic enforcement generally, has increased the prominence of automatic detection equipment, which tends to mean speed cameras. IMO, that's no reason to throw in the towel over speeding offences as well. On the contrary, the present discredited system should be revised to make it more effective. IMO, more widespread use of average speed cameras would be an excellent idea.

Finally, I'd not want to lose sight of my main point in the context of this thread which is that IMO, the decision no to disqualify this defendant was a poor one. I suspect, but I'm again not sure, that the prosecution has no right of appeal since this is part of a summary sentence so we have no way of knowing what a higher court would have made of it.