WHAT!

[reohn2]

Here are the current sentencing guidelines for driving over the permitted limit:-

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/of ... ised-2017/

While they are "only" guidelines they are mandatory in the sense that (a) they set out the statutory maximum penalty and (b) any deviation from the guidelines in assessing the penalty within the max will almost inevitably lead to an appeal with the likelihood of something within the guidelines being substituted.

Fortunately, on this second occasion, the legal system has apparently worked to prevent the defendant's intoxication causing something more serious.

To my mind the seriousness of defendant's crime was D&D after he'd already killed two people on a previous occasion and as such proven unworthy of holding driving licence for much longer than 22 months(with a let off of 22weeks if he attends a D&D course).In short the law is yet again found sadly lacking with regards to motorists

[thirdcrank]

If I've read the sentencing guidelines for that alcohol result correctly, then the "starting point" for calculating the sentence is a "Band C" fine and the top of the range is a "low level community order," all combined with a driving ban of "17 – 22 months."

There's little detail about the sentencing remarks and nothing about the calculation in this case. The only aggravating factor reported seems to be:-

Previous convictions, having regard to a) the nature of the offence to which the conviction relates and its relevance to the current offence; and b) the time that has elapsed since the conviction

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/of ... ised-2017/
The defendant will also have benefited from a discount for pleading guilty, but it's a complicated formula:-
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/ov ... june-2017/

My interpretation here is that this defendant has received just about the heaviest sentence that the guidelines prescribe.

[reohn2]

........My interpretation here is that this defendant has received just about the heaviest sentence that the guidelines prescribe.

As ever the law is slewed in the criminal's favour.

[thirdcrank]

I've never paid much attention to sentencing, although I can remember the days when it was pretty much "Think of a number....." Also the likes of Judge James Pickles sought to gain some of the public attention received by his Uncle Wilfred. My main reason for posting here was to try to show that the criticism of the beak was misplaced.

Right or wrong, the sentencing guidelines are partly based on public consultation.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/consultations/

On the matter of driving bans for life, I think I've posted before that they were scrapped some fifty years ago although some of the detail is now hazy.

[horizon]

I've posted before that I believe that it is wrong to use a driving ban as a punishment for a motoring offence, no matter how serious. I don't think the person in question should have been banned at all for what he did.

The imposition of a driving ban should be related entirely to the protection of other road users. This would be by ensuring that only those fit to drive are allowed to do so. In the original case, the defendant should have been banned until such time as he might prove that he was fit to drive - ten years doesn't sound unreasonable (demonstrated by his further offending). In the drink-driving case, it is a simple matter of the defendant having demonstrated beyond all doubt that he is not a fit person to use a vehicle on the roads (being able to drive isn't what we are talking about). A further ten years seems about right. If the ban is only two years, then it is hard to see what will change in that time so you might as well let him drive now and cause the carnage now rather than later.

[awavey]

if you could ensure a banned driver never sat behind the wheel of a car whilst the ban was in effect,it might work, but you cant, the police only catch a fraction of the drivers currently banned/unlicensed & therefore uninsured by sheer chance.

and given the amount their road traffic units social media will nearly always report a stop and then report they discovered driver is unlicenced or banned (some in one case I saw banned only a week earlier and stopped by the same police cop) its a depressingly high percentage of drivers who dont pay any attention to that needing a licence to drive requirement bit

there was a case locally I read about where a driver who had been banned for death by careless driving, and was caught driving again a few months after sentencing, and the best they could was just extend the driving ban a few more months, like that was going to have an impact.

and thats the reality frankly theres more chance of him reoffending because of the increased length of the ban, a shorter ban might have had more effect in keeping him off the road for longer.

but quite a sobering thought when you realise you are putting your safety when riding a bicycle with traffic around in lots of these peoples hands, who are demonstrably not fit to drive, and just kind of hoping for the best from them

[thirdcrank]

... given the amount their road traffic units social media will nearly always report a stop and then report they discovered driver is unlicenced or banned ...

I agree with the whole of your post and I'd add that detecting and convicting disqualified drivers was difficult enough even when road traffic enforcement received a lot more emphasis than it does today. It shows the state of things when even run-of-the-mill enforcement makes it into the national news via official social media releases. eg Somebody was done for hogging the centre lane on a motorway the other day and it made the national online news. We also get a lot of talk-tough-act-weak spin from the govt over laura norder more generally.

IMO this case is free of spin and shows how things operate in real life. I don't know anything about the fatal crash but even a relatively brief term of imprisonment apparently ended the defendant's promising career with Man City and possibly England. I do know he ended two people's lives and he's still alive and kicking, albeit at a more lowly level. In the more recent breathalyser conviction he was detected before anybody was hurt and apparently received a sentence at the more serious end of the guidelines. And as I posted above, those guidelines were influenced by public consultation.

[Cunobelin]

If you mean the latter offence, then I guess sentencing guidelines?

What about previous convictions?
This excuse for a human being killed two people by driving through a crossroad junction at almost twice the speed limit(see the video evidence),served less than a year in prison and now is convicted of D&D over twice the legal limit of alcohol and is handed down a 22month driving ban!
If those are the sentencing guidelines something is seriously wrong with those guidelines!
Plus he gets 22weeks off that sentence if he serves a D&D awareness course!!!!

One of the problems with the legal system, is that previous offences are seen as irrelevant to the present one.

It is felt that it would influence the Jury

However there should be a "three strikes" and out or similar with lifetime ban as the driver has shown unequivocally thatchy are either unable or unwilling to drive properly and safely

[horizon]

if you could ensure a banned driver never sat behind the wheel of a car whilst the ban was in effect,it might work, but you cant, the police only catch a fraction of the drivers currently banned/unlicensed & therefore uninsured by sheer chance.

and given the amount their road traffic units social media will nearly always report a stop and then report they discovered driver is unlicenced or banned (some in one case I saw banned only a week earlier and stopped by the same police cop) its a depressingly high percentage of drivers who dont pay any attention to that needing a licence to drive requirement bit

there was a case locally I read about where a driver who had been banned for death by careless driving, and was caught driving again a few months after sentencing, and the best they could was just extend the driving ban a few more months, like that was going to have an impact.

and thats the reality frankly theres more chance of him reoffending because of the increased length of the ban, a shorter ban might have had more effect in keeping him off the road for longer.

but quite a sobering thought when you realise you are putting your safety when riding a bicycle with traffic around in lots of these peoples hands, who are demonstrably not fit to drive, and just kind of hoping for the best from them

Like thirdcrank, I don't disagree with what you say. But I'll add a couple of points:

1. People like me fondly believe that a driving ban means just that. If that isn't the case (and I take your point) then I'm at a loss to understand why a driving ban is ever given in any instance.

2. I believe that enforcement is possible. Just as speed cameras were painted yellow when it was realised they were actually quite effective, I think that effective enforcement would be resisted politically - that's just a thought. What's needed is a re-appraisal of the importance of a ban.

3. I agree with thirdcrank (if I have read him right) that the punishments in both cases related to this man were appropriate (I do trust the wisdom of others in this area). The driving ban wouldn't be a further punishment - it would simply be a statement of fact. When people fail their driving test or budding pilots their eyesight test, they aren't being "punished" for an offence they have committed - indeed people are very sympathetic. A driving licence isn't a right: it's a qualified permission to do something that you must demonstrate you have an ability to do. Convicted robbers and fraudsters don't generally get jobs in banks even if they are good at arithmetic. A firearms licence comes with similar caveats as does a sale of alcohol licence. What's needed is a better understanding by society of what a driving test and licence are for: at the moment they just test your ability to operate a car and give you the exam result. Suitability (judged by subsequent driving behaviour) must be part of holding a licence to drive. Just as being able to fire a gun accurately at a target doesn't necessarily mean you should automatically have a firearms licence.

[thirdcrank]

At the point of sentencing, relevant previous convictions have always been considered. FWIW, this breathalyser case involved involved a guilty plea in the magistrates' court so it was never going anywhere near a jury.

Legal changes to allow wider disclosure of a defendant's previous convictions came into force in 2005. More detail here:-
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/b ... r-evidence

I agree with thirdcrank (if I have read him right) that the punishments in both cases related to this man were appropriate (I do trust the wisdom of others in this area)

I was trying to make the point that the sentence in the breath test case was in accordance with the guidelines and provided a link for anybody who wanted to check my arithmetic.

[horizon]

One of the problems with the legal system, is that previous offences are seen as irrelevant to the present one.

Accumulating points does just that.

[reohn2]

The thing that troubles me about laura norder in modern day UK is the gradual decline which goes hand in hand with the decline in police numbers and consequentially effectiveness and that those that aren't rehabilitated by the slap on the wrist first offence sentencing.
The number of second or multiple offending offenders is many and varied,the way it pans out IMO is that if there's little chance of being caught there's more chance offending or reoffending.

There's someone who lives on the same estate as I do,who's motoring offences are many and varied including driving without insurance,VED,MOT,false number plates,including displaying different plates front and rear.He was even driving a beat up Ford Ka with diplomatic reg plates at one point,and ids currently driving a Ford Mustang US muscle car,how he affords the insurance with his driving record is anyone's guess!

He's been reported umpteen times and has been convicted on a couple of occasions but is still driving for a living!

[horizon]

There's someone who lives on the same estate as I do,who's motoring offences are many and varied including driving without insurance,VED,MOT,false number plates,including displaying different plates front and rear.He was even driving a beat up Ford Ka with diplomatic reg plates at one point,and ids currently driving a Ford Mustang US muscle car,how he affords the insurance with his driving record is anyone's guess!

He's been reported umpteen times and has been convicted on a couple of occasions but is still driving for a living!

If he were often seen drunk at the wheel, the reaction might have been different because society has adjusted to this. I don't really care if someone doesn't pay their "car tax" as long as they drive carefully. The issue with driving while banned is that it might have been to keep a dangerous driver off the roads yet it is seen as a petty offence.

[reohn2]

There's someone who lives on the same estate as I do,who's motoring offences are many and varied including driving without insurance,VED,MOT,false number plates,including displaying different plates front and rear.He was even driving a beat up Ford Ka with diplomatic reg plates at one point,and ids currently driving a Ford Mustang US muscle car,how he affords the insurance with his driving record is anyone's guess!

He's been reported umpteen times and has been convicted on a couple of occasions but is still driving for a living!

If he were often seen drunk at the wheel, the reaction might have been different because society has adjusted to this. I don't really care if someone doesn't pay their "car tax" as long as they drive carefully. The issue with driving while banned is that it might have been to keep a dangerous driver off the roads yet it is seen as a petty offence.

I agree about the VED but it's often symptomatic of other offences ie; you need insurance to buy VED for any car.
I don't see a driving ban as petty as I don't see multiple points on a licence as petty.
The problems are as I state previously poor to non existant policing,and very harsh sentencing for repeat offender,so you're probably right the people doing out the law and the law itself sees such offending as petty.

[Cugel]

The thing that troubles me about laura norder in modern day UK is the gradual decline which goes hand in hand with the decline in police numbers and consequentially effectiveness and that those that aren't rehabilitated by the slap on the wrist first offence sentencing.
The number of second or multiple offending offenders is many and varied,the way it pans out IMO is that if there's little chance of being caught there's more chance offending or reoffending.

There's someone who lives on the same estate as I do,who's motoring offences are many and varied including driving without insurance,VED,MOT,false number plates,including displaying different plates front and rear.He was even driving a beat up Ford Ka with diplomatic reg plates at one point,and ids currently driving a Ford Mustang US muscle car,how he affords the insurance with his driving record is anyone's guess!

He's been reported umpteen times and has been convicted on a couple of occasions but is still driving for a living!

As another poster notes, even swathes of police will not stop the many determined-to-drive loonies doing so, by any and all means and despite potential punishments (especially non-punishments like bans). They are addicted to the pleasures of the car.

There is an obvious fundamental cause of the widespread deaths, injuries, misery, pollution and a host of other ills associated with cars: the cars themselves. Why have we come to allow these evil things? That's a rhetorical question as the answers are familiar to all of us. Cars are seductive, convenient and many other things that appeal to many of our basic human desires.

Until lately, our society has been unquestioning of the car - apart from a very few classed as mad bigots trying to deprive Mr Motorist of his legit pleasures and conveniences. As the real price of having the things gradually reveals itself to the public at large (often when they take up cycling, their grandma dies unexpectedly of lung-despoil or their children develop a serious asthma) the mood has begun to change.

Yet the car lobby is still very large, vociferous and entirely unreasonable about their "rights" to degrade so much with their pride&joy. Will this plague of Toads be treated as they should - cured by withdrawl of their lethal toys? Seems unlikely and posts like these, hooting mournfully about this awful case of carmageddon or that, will go on for ever.

Cugel