Jail for road-rage motorist who deliberately ploughed into cyclists

[thirdcrank]

Re the special reasons for not disqualifying, IMO this is an example of "the Will of Parliament" not being followed.

I've never paid more attention than absolutely necessary to sentencing so my detail is a bit thin, but I'm pretty sure that under the original scheme, something like losing a job was not intended to be a reason for not disqualifying but many magistrates' ignored that. To be fair to them, they regularly come into contact with fine defaulters who have lost their job.

Anyway, during the tidying up effected by the Road Trafffic Offenders Act, 1988, this was put on a proper footing, or so they thought. "Disqualification for repeated offences" AKA totting-up is covered under s35 and among a lot of other twiddly bits, and subsection (4)(b) says:

(4) No account is to be taken under subsection (1) above of any of the following circumstances—
...
(b) hardship, other than exceptional hardship,
....

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/53/section/35

That was a clear attempt to reduce the number of repeat offenders escaping a totting-up disqualification, but a nod's as good as wink and it's a rare learned friend who won't argue that any loss of a driving licence is exceptionally exceptional hardship. Not always successfully, of course, but it's the successes that are publicised and that's what reduces the deterrent effect when some people come to believe they can't touch you for it and others believe that the law is riddled with loopholes. When it comes to deterrence, image is more important than substance.

[LollyKat]

In any case, how effective is disqualification in practice? There seem to be regular reports of disqualified drivers continuing to drive.

[thirdcrank]

In any case, how effective is disqualification in practice? There seem to be regular reports of disqualified drivers continuing to drive.

One of my many hobby horses.

[horizon]

In any case, how effective is disqualification in practice? There seem to be regular reports of disqualified drivers continuing to drive.

thirdcrank wrote:
One of my many hobby horses.

horizon wrote:
Its only drawback is the need for effective enforcement, for which I for one can think of many solutions.

[thirdcrank]

... for which I for one can think of many solutions.

Yes. I saw that first time, but I assumed you had some reason for not sharing them.

[horizon]

... for which I for one can think of many solutions.

Yes. I saw that first time, but I assumed you had some reason for not sharing them.

Mainly because it isn't worth it as I don't think that that is what is stopping the use of disqualification. It is in fact what you mentioned above, the reluctance of any court to impose such a draconian sentence that would indeed cause exceptional and unthinkable hardship. That, I suppose, is the beauty of it - the more the motorist protests against its use the more useful it becomes. Disqualification is for most people the equivalent of house arrest. And yet we all call for imprisonment.

It is also a huge shame that disqualification isn't used as an early stage of a sort of psychometric testing - you use the first, minor offences as an indication of what might come later and nip it in the bud.

[Tizme]

As I have posted previously when this topic has come up, I knew a lady who drove to court, was banned (for habitual speeding) for 12 months and then drove home. She continued to drive for the whole period of her disqualification. There seems little point in handing out bans if they are not enforced and with the present manning levels of the police I cannot see the situation improving. There also seemed little point in reporting her to the Police as they needed to catch her "in the act" and the chances of that happening were slim, to say the least.

[thirdcrank]

As I have posted previously when this topic has come up, I knew a lady who drove to court, was banned (for habitual speeding) for 12 months and then drove home. She continued to drive for the whole period of her disqualification. There seems little point in handing out bans if they are not enforced and with the present manning levels of the police I cannot see the situation improving. There also seemed little point in reporting her to the Police as they needed to catch her "in the act" and the chances of that happening were slim, to say the least.

As with a prosecution for any offence, there has to be sufficient admissible evidence to secure a conviction. That's pretty basic law. With driving while disqualified, apart from some sort of voluntary admission, the only evidence I can think of is from credible witnesses saying "I saw the defendant driving..." The strongest challenge to the evidence would typically be doubts about the identification of the driver. This is why to be certain of a conviction, a case based on police evidence would normally have to include the defendant being stopped while driving and spoken to face-to-face. A reliable witness who personally knew somebody, such a neighbour, who could say I saw xxx who I have known personally as a neighbour for x years, come out of their house and drive away in such-and-such a car, would be giving formidable evidence, unless it could be shown they had some sort of reason such as a grudge to incriminate their neighbour. For understandable reasons, not everybody wants to inform on their neighbours.

[horizon]

There seems little point in handing out bans if they are not enforced and with the present manning levels of the police I cannot see the situation improving.

Unless you are suggesting otherwise, AFAICS that isn't the reason disqualification isn't used as much as it could be.

[horizon]

As with a prosecution for any offence, there has to be sufficient admissible evidence to secure a conviction. That's pretty basic law. With driving while disqualified, apart from some sort of voluntary admission, the only evidence I can think of is from credible witnesses saying "I saw the defendant driving..." The strongest challenge to the evidence would typically be doubts about the identification of the driver. This is why to be certain of a conviction, a case based on police evidence would normally have to include the defendant being stopped while driving and spoken to face-to-face. A reliable witness who personally knew somebody, such a neighbour, who could say I saw xxx who I have known personally as a neighbour for x years, come out of their house and drive away in such-and-such a car, would be giving formidable evidence, unless it could be shown they had some sort of reason such as a grudge to incriminate their neighbour. For understandable reasons, not everybody wants to inform on their neighbours.

thirdcrank: I suspect that you are thinking I am sidestepping the issue. You're at least partly right if you are. But I do strongly feel that if society felt that disqualification was the road to go down (so to speak) they would find a way to enforce it. TBH I really don't know why it isn't used more except for the reason that there would be outrage.

[thirdcrank]

... thirdcrank: I suspect that you are thinking I am sidestepping the issue. You're at least partly right if you are. But I do strongly feel that if society felt that disqualification was the road to go down (so to speak) they would find a way to enforce it. TBH I really don't know why it isn't used more except for the reason that there would be outrage.

I'd forgotten about it. If anybody is going to change it, it would have to be society, because this is something that has always been so, with the possible exception that with better legal advice, more defendants are likely to test identification evidence now than formerly.

Going back all the way to 1971, I was in a small department called Plain Clothes responsible for investigating a ragbag of offences from assault to the theft of pedal cycles. When our sergeant was on annual leave, another was posted in for that couple of weeks, always keen to make their mark. They usually did it with a pub raid or similar. We got one with a traffic background and his big idea was to catch some disqualified drivers. His plan, which seemed dodgy to me even in the less regulated 1970's was to do some sort of bogus market research survey, basically spying on disqualified drivers. Apart from any moral issues, there's the simple point that even out of uniform there's a good chance of being recognised so undercover work of that kind usually means borrowing strangers to the immediate area. For one reason or another it never got beyond the bright idea stage, but that was largely inspired by frustration at knowing how much disqualified driving went unprosecuted.

I think most disqualified drivers who are caught, come into contact with the police quite by chance and are sussed out. There must be a good few who bluff their way out.

On the matter of more widespread use of disqualification for offences beyond motoring, a scheme began to be rolled out ( possibly 2002?) where it could be used for almost any offence. I think we had a thread about being disqualified from driving for cycling offences and there was publicity about it being a sanction available to the Child Support Agency.

[Audax67]

One of the nice little whammies awaiting the wilfully wayward motorist in Germany is a quiet little comment on the offender's file that reads "character unsuited to holding a driving licence". Once that's there you can take the test as often as you like but you'll never pass it. The thing is, they don't have to notify you of the fact: if you suspect it you can take steps to have it removed, but it's a hassle.

Bloke I read of earned it by using a radar detector - trivial compared to whatisface's behaviour.

[thirdcrank]

They do all sorts differently in other countries but we've voted to retain our own way of doing it so not much point in wishful thinking.

The most obvious difference to me is the absence of any requirement to carry ID. If the police want to see a driving licence it can be produced up to a week later and although computer checks are possible, memorising somebody else's name and d.o.b isn't that hard. Obviously people get caught and the regular reports of drivers being charged with perverting justice are evidence of that, but a lot go undetected. The evidence of that being the number of hit-and-run crashes and the regular statements from insurers of how much uninsured drivers add to the costs of those who pay for their insurance.

[Cyril Haearn]

One of the nice little whammies awaiting the wilfully wayward motorist in Germany is a quiet little comment on the offender's file that reads "character unsuited to holding a driving licence". Once that's there you can take the test as often as you like but you'll never pass it. The thing is, they don't have to notify you of the fact: if you suspect it you can take steps to have it removed, but it's a hassle.

Bloke I read of earned it by using a radar detector - trivial compared to whatisface's behaviour.

In Germany there is Fahrverbot, driving ban. In some circumstances one may decide when to serve the ban!

And there is Fuehrerscheinentzug, withdrawal of driving licence, so one would have to *learn to drive* again

Someone caught drink-driving several times may have to take an *Idiotentest*, there are many legends about this..

[Audax67]

...The most obvious difference to me is the absence of any requirement to carry ID....

Not really that much of an imposition. I've lived with it since 1972.