Freddie Far too Flipping fast Flintoff...

[thirdcrank]

The same opportunity to make a plea of exceptional hardship is open to Mondeo and Lorry man. ...

Exactly. And we seem to be moving towards a situation where virtually anything is accepted as "exceptional" - a contradiction in terms. Perhaps the difference with this defendant is that he still retains a bit of that status of being a "celeb." This means that his antics are more widely reported than the run-of-the-mill defendant in the magistrates' court. The real beneficiaries here are all the lawyers who line up to make similar applications, because more drivers will be encouraged to use their services. (FWIW, I suspect that the one involved in this case had to disguise his own amazement when it succeeded.)

[reohn2]

....... The real beneficiaries here are all the lawyers who line up to make similar applications, because more drivers will be encouraged to use their services. (FWIW, I suspect that the one involved in this case had to disguise his own amazement when it succeeded.)

If you get 9 points and get an automatic 6 month ban that would be the 'line in the sand'.
Anyone who comes before a court then knows the outcome.
No excuses,no sob stories,no fancy lawyers, a 6 month ban plus the fine which IMO should(maybe is,I don't know)linked to income.
It could be that simple,and so would the message,continual law breaking will get you banned.
As it is we have whining moaning gits who know they stand a change of getting of with it if they get their story right,or pleading enough of "I won't be able to carry on doing my charity work"etc,etc.
It's enough to make me vomit.
I know if I don't speed,drive stupidly or aggressively there's a 100% chance I won't pick up points and fines,that's simple too!
Why we(UK society) keep putting up with criminals posing as do gooders is beyond me.

[Bonefishblues]

I know if I don't speed,drive stupidly or aggressively there's a 100% chance I won't pick up points and fines,that's simple too!
Why we(UK society) keep putting up with criminals posing as do gooders is beyond me.

Just a couple of things, since we know each other's position well by now

I know if I don't speed,drive stupidly or aggressively, and am lucky/skillful enough never to make an honest mistake or misjudgement there's a 100% chance I won't pick up points and fines,that's simple too!
...would describe it better, perhaps?

Flintoff, for 'tis he who is metaphorically in the Dock on the thread, is convicted of a criminal offence relating to excessive speed. That's not in doubt.

Also not in doubt, unless he has perjured himself in Court to a quite remarkable degree, is the fact that his Foundation has raised many hundreds of thousands of pounds (now approaching a million-pound donation for Great Ormond Street Hospital for Sick Children alone, I note) for good causes. With respect, this is not a man "posing as a do-gooder", I reckon this is the real deal.

Link here: http://www.affoundation.co.uk/index.php

[Psamathe]

(From the report

But they accepted a ban would have an adverse effect on others who relied on his extensive charity work.

I think that the "cause hardship" excuse is used far far too often and people get away.

I remember years ago my boss was done for speeding; he had just got his open top Jag XK8 and was on a clear straight open road had no previous convictions but his speed would have meant an immediate ban. And he managed the "hardship" and got away with points and a massive fine (really massive, several thousand. Though I notice Flintoff just got £330!!

They should look at the number of charity events he needs to drive to, where they are, where he lives and if it is possible (albeit inconvenient) to use taxis and public transport. And I bet is is so he should do that and get banned - not effectively let-off.

I've never had any points but most people who get some then start driving much more carefully - which I suppose is part of the reason the scheme is used. Flintoff knew his accumulated points, knew the consequences of speeding (again) yet felt he was just above the law or that it didn't apply to him for some reason. So a failure of justice in my opinion.

Ian

[Bonefishblues]

<moderated>

I deleted my post in the light of Moderation, which removed its context.

[thirdcrank]

... The Court will have looked at the number of charity events he needs to drive to, where they are, where he lived and if it was possible (albeit inconvenient) to use taxis and public transport. . ...

I don't think that this is how it works. On the contrary, a magistrates' court is generally faced at times like this with assertions that they have no real means of investigating or verifying. When comparatives and superlatives are used, within a framework of "I am instructed that..." I don't believe that they often have the level of factual information implied. It may well be that equity is best served by a finding of exceptional hardship in some cases, but that shouldn't depend on the Equity membership of an advocate.

IMO, this case demonstrates what's wrong with the present system.

[Bonefishblues]

... The Court will have looked at the number of charity events he needs to drive to, where they are, where he lived and if it was possible (albeit inconvenient) to use taxis and public transport. . ...

I don't think that this is how it works. On the contrary, a magistrates' court is generally faced at times like this with assertions that they have no real means of investigating or verifying. When comparatives and superlatives are used, within a framework of "I am instructed that..." I don't believe that they often have the level of factual information implied. It may well be that equity is best served by a finding of exceptional hardship in some cases, but that shouldn't depend on the Equity membership of an advocate.

IMO, this case demonstrates what's wrong with the present system.

"Assertions" as you term them are made under oath and Magistrates have the right to question the Advocate or the Offender.

It would be a foolish individual who told untruths (as opposed to putting their client's case in the best way, which is after all what they are paid to do, even for the guilty...), since that's a much more serious offence in the eyes of the law than their original offence.

What would a better system look like?

[reohn2]

bonefish
How much hardship would his chosen charity suffer as a result of his being banned for six months, do you think?
And could he not afford a driver ?
This 'real deal' has been convicted three times previously in short order, so knew the possibility of a ban.I'd turn the tables on him and say he was being even more reckless by risking not only his licence and therfire his chosen charity's income due his continual lawbreaking, but the possibility of other people's health and welbeing.

BTW, sometimes when I'm driving I have,due to bad signposting, ask myself is this a 40 or a 30 limit? If in doubt I err on the cautious side,that's because I value my driving licence above my want to go faster, and also I'm wise enough,due to experience,to know that driving faster doesn't get get me there any quicker, especially in urban traffic.On M/ways I'd be confined by other traffic's speed unless I drive recklessly or the m/way is empty of traffic, which is increasingly rare in the UK.
So frankly, whilst one speeding fine can be excused(I've one myself,1976,50mph in a 40) continual offending is proof that the offender isn't capable of driving within the law.
Therefore consistent offenders should be banned for a period of reflection,and should also have to prove they are
capable before being allowed to drive on our roads again by being assessed by a driving examiner at the offender's cost of course

[Vorpal]

What would a better system look like?

IMO, a better system would make exceptional hardship truly exceptional. The offender should have to make a case for 'exceptional' as well as hardship. Then the offender should only be permitted to drive for those things that make the case for exceptional hardship. There should be a permit system, or limited licence to allow for this. And the offender should carry a list of permitted uses with the licence or permit.

So, a fictional example... the offender is a sole provider for 6 kids and an infirm mum, no access to public transport and works night shifts while mum looks after the kids. Mum doesn't drive, etc. Then the offender can be permitted to use the car to get to and from work, but not for social activities.

Whether the offender is permitted to drive for other things depends on alternatives available. If there are shops within walking / cycling distance (5 km?) the offender is not permitted to drive. If there is community transport that can take mum down to the surgery, the offender is not permitted to drive for that purpose.

Allowance could also be made for emergencies (e.g. taking someone to A&E). If the offender abuses the privilege by driving when s/he is not supposed to, the result is a permanent ban.

[Psamathe]

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

[Bonefishblues]

What would a better system look like?

IMO, a better system would make exceptional hardship truly exceptional. The offender should have to make a case for 'exceptional' as well as hardship. Then the offender should only be permitted to drive for those things that make the case for exceptional hardship. There should be a permit system, or limited licence to allow for this. And the offender should carry a list of permitted uses with the licence or permit.

So, a fictional example... the offender is a sole provider for 6 kids and an infirm mum, no access to public transport and works night shifts while mum looks after the kids. Mum doesn't drive, etc. Then the offender can be permitted to use the car to get to and from work, but not for social activities.

Whether the offender is permitted to drive for other things depends on alternatives available. If there are shops within walking / cycling distance (5 km?) the offender is not permitted to drive. If there is community transport that can take mum down to the surgery, the offender is not permitted to drive for that purpose.

Allowance could also be made for emergencies (e.g. taking someone to A&E). If the offender abuses the privilege by driving when s/he is not supposed to, the result is a permanent ban.

It's not "the system" you're questioning, it's the law itself.

Do you really think the scheme above is practical though? Off the top of my head:

What constitutes an emergency? How do you determine the purpose of the journey being made? Who will practically enforce this? Who sets the tariff and prescribed/proscribed journey profile based on need and hardship, and how long would this process take? Does the harm society is trying to prevent merit the effort it would take to do that, or would society's limited resources be better spent elsewhere?

Speeding is an offence of strict liability already. Why not simply remove the right to plead mitigation? Simple, easy, takes convicted criminals off the road.

Or perhaps simply tighten, via legislation, the criteria for exceptional hardship currently being applied, which several posters think is too loose. Also simple, easy, effective - Courts follow new Guidelines using an existing process.

[thirdcrank]

... "Assertions" as you term them are made under oath and Magistrates have the right to question the Advocate or the Offender.

It would be a foolish individual who told untruths (as opposed to putting their client's case in the best way, which is after all what they are paid to do, even for the guilty...), since that's a much more serious offence in the eyes of the law than their original offence.

What would a better system look like?

Assertions - as I term them - are nothing more than that. I'm talking about the grey area between black and white, which is why I referred to superlatives and comparatives. I'm not suggesting that lawyers in general - and certainly not in this specific case - lie or encourage others to do so. There's no need. It's just a question of accentuating the positive. I don't think it's correct to say that only sworn testimony is admissible in support of an application like this but in any case, nobody is in any position to challenge it because they have no opportunity to check it.

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.
===================================================================================================
edit to add.

I forgot to mention that I've tried to verify what I'm saying from the CPS Legal Advice to Prosecutors. Although prosecutors are advised on how to deal with the issue of special reasons for not disqualifying the defendant (which have to be based on the facts of the case and are therefore within the scope of a prosecutor) I can find nothing about exceptional hardship (which concerns the defendant's circumstances.) This suggests to me that the CPS takes no view on these applications which would mean that the court had no help from anybody other than the defence. If anybody knows better, I'd be please to have my knowledge increased.

[reohn2]

Vopal, Pasmathe
Why should society pander to continual offenders, they know the risks of continual offending,so why do they continue offending if it's going to cause hardship to them and their families?

[Psamathe]

Vopal, Pasmathe
Why should society pander to continual offenders, they know the risks of continual offending,so why do they continue offending if it's going to cause hardship to them and their families?

I don't know that it should. I'm cautious about saying no "hardship considerations" ever, in case somebody presents a set of genuine hardship and circumstances where maybe point had been accumulated for other reasons... (basically I don't know about all possible situations). Hence my thoughts to that the "hardship" let-off be tightened massively and when it might be warranted (e.g. the circumstances I can't foresee), alternative and far worse punishments are issued instead, something that gives lots back to society and bad enough that the convicted really wishes they did not have to use the "hardship" excuse.

If people realised that trying the "hardship" would get them a really bad alternative, I suspect that the numbers of people trying it would massively decline.

Ian

[Bonefishblues]

bonefish
How much hardship would his chosen charity suffer as a result of his being banned for six months, do you think?
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.

And could he not afford a driver ?
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?

This 'real deal' has been convicted three times previously in short order, so knew the possibility of a ban.I'd turn the tables on him and say he was being even more reckless by risking not only his licence and therfire his chosen charity's income due his continual lawbreaking, but the possibility of other people's health and welbeing.
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.

BTW, sometimes when I'm driving I have,due to bad signposting, ask myself is this a 40 or a 30 limit? If in doubt I err on the cautious side,that's because I value my driving licence above my want to go faster, and also I'm wise enough,due to experience,to know that driving faster doesn't get get me there any quicker, especially in urban traffic.On M/ways I'd be confined by other traffic's speed unless I drive recklessly or the m/way is empty of traffic, which is increasingly rare in the UK.
So frankly, whilst one speeding fine can be excused(I've one myself,1976,50mph in a 40) continual offending is proof that the offender isn't capable of driving within the law.
Then ban them for life, end of. Easy, except that would make bad law, one suspects. 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 )

Therefore consistent offenders should be banned for a period of reflection,and should also have to prove they are
capable before being allowed to drive on our roads again by being assessed by a driving examiner at the offender's cost of course.
Yes I agree, persistent offenders who show that they are unwilling to modify behaviour should absolutely be treated in this way.

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.