This is not an area of the law about which I know a great deal in theory, however a friend of mine was caught in similar circumstances.
I think where he is will have a major effect on how severe the ban is. My friend had a reading of 72 and was caught after an accident in which there was property damage and he failed to stop. He received an 18 month ban, reduced by 3 months if he completed a course. As the insurance premium was subsequently horrendous (i.e., £2k vs. £900 without NCB) he hasn't bothered driving again.
His fine was quite small - £150 or so I believe. Assuming there was no accident involved, I would expect your FIL to get a ban on the shorter end of the scale and a similar fine, at least from reading local papers. However, it might be worth pleading any mitigating circumstances in case the magistrates start out with a longer ban and only ever reduce it to 12 months, taking account of the circumstances.
He should plead guilty unless there have been procedural irregularities. Even if he pleads guilty, he can adduce evidence of good character and so on. It doesn't sound like there have been irregularities, but a solicitor probably won't want more than a couple of hours' worth to handle the case, so I wouldn't rule it out unless it's absolutely impossible for him to meet the cost.
My feeling is that there's no point in telling the court he's not interested in doing a course or worried about the length of the ban. They will punish him based on criteria that are set in advance, and may react badly to an 'arrogant' defendant who expects them to take into account his explicit wishes (rather than circumstances) when punishing him. They certainly won't say 'Ah well, have 3 months off anyway, seeing as you don't want to do the course.'
|
Thanks David,
He was simply pulled over after driving through a red light. Although my father in law says they were behind him at a traffic light and when he pulled away on green they pulled him over citing the red light offence. I'm sure this is a "procedural irregularity" but in practice his word against theirs in this situation is a waste of time. I understood the 12 months ban was a maximum without aggravating circumstances as your friend. I feel a solicitor is a waste of money and he should throw himself on their mercy and take the course if offered.
I have heard about some smart a..e defences re: machine calibrations and copies of specimens etc. etc. but frankly in his situation he needs the lesson and besides I suspect if you attempt this strategy and it goes wrong they take great delight in throwing the book at you.
|
I would recommend getting a solicitor. If only so as not to get a longer ban by saying the wrong thing. Can your FIL claim that his job depends on his licence? It probably won't stop the ban, but it might reduce the length.
The ban would come into force immediately. He will not be allowed to drive home from court.
|
|
I understand the ban to be 12 months no more or no less (less if you complete an education course) unless you take out a queue at a bus stop at the same time. I think 12 months without transport is a good enough lesson for anyone except those people who continue to drive disqualified and the thousands of people who drive round high on other less testable narcotics. He needs his car to get to work but who doesn't, I understood the courts to ban you no matter what even if your whole job and subsequent home and family committments depended on it?? There must be some real sad stories out there due to one moment of madness hence the deterrent I suppose.
|
|
I thought 12 months was a minimum, rising higher depending on how far over the limit the defendant was.
|
Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 Schedule 2
Driving over the prescribed limit.
Mode of prosecution : Summarily (Mags Crt)
Punishment: 6months imprisonment or level 5 fine on the standard scale (£5,000)
Disqualification obligatory: Not less than 12 months (Section 34)
Endorsement: Obligatory
Points: 3 to 11.
Court Procedure (something like this):
Defendant called, charge outlined and then asked by Clerk of Court as to plea (Guilty?)
CPS Solicitor outlines the case from a statement of facts.
(For his presence there will be a fee as Court Costs anywhere from £45 to a ton which Defendant will have to pay in addition to sentence passed.)
Defendant can then give his account either from the witnesses box under oath from which he can be cross examined, or,
he can make a statement from the floor of the Court and can not be X examined. This is the time for a contrite, truthful expression of regret (bordering on a grovel).
Magistrates then consider and pronounce sentence.
As this seems a clear cut case then whilst a Solicitor would perhaps outline mitigation and regret, his time will be charged and added to the overall Bill and may not achieve a reduction in the overall sentence. Other than a clear cut case then a Solicitor may be a practical application.
As to sentence re reduction if defendant attends a re hab course etc. this may not be applicable as I understand, and can be corrected on this point, it has not been adapted universally.
Hope this helps.
DVD
|
My dad was done for drink driving, he was driving someone home the day after a party and got pulled they say for a dodgy head light.
He got a fine, 12 month ban and community service, his solicitor didnt help him one bit he told him he was prob going to get a small fine and a 6 month ban, wot a usless solicitor.
He never drove for 3 years after as he didnt need a car hes just got one and fully com insurance for £500 and that was for a ford mondeo 2ltr as well.
|
My punishment was 2 years ban reducable to 18 months if I do the rehab course, which costs £200 or so, which will reduce future reinsurance costs. I got no fine, but a period of community service because I had to prove my ability to pay a fine but could not (Im a student and in debt.) The 2 year ban was placed upon me due to the aggravating factors, namely deciding it was a good plan to use Mum's car (no insurance.) I did not have to give a statement at court - I simply plead guilty to the charges except for no MOT, to which the magistrates paid no attention. If I had been able to afford the fine it would have been circa £500, or so I was advised. Just thought Id publish it being somebody who has first hand experience!
As for the comment about £500 on a Mondeo...this pleases me! Im figuring out how to get my finances in order so that when I eventually drive again I can get myself a new Corsa/Polo. Maybe a Polo TDi, quite low insurance... anyway! :)
|
My punishment was 2 years ban reducable to 18 months if I do the rehab course, which costs £200 or so, which will reduce future reinsurance costs.
The insurance will very much depend on age as well as the DUI charge. A friend completed his 2 year ban 2 years ago and has been paying £1800pa F/comp for a new mini cooper. He's 25
|
|
|
|
Hi There
I blew 69 last saturday
You said that you have the choice of statement or cross exam
the cross exam can be really awful if the CPS decides to go for the jugular....but the lack of reply may coundt against you.....do you have an opinion on which is better
I am preparing a simple one page statement giving a bit about my circumstances and offering to do a rehab course ( I think I will get 16-reduced to 12)
|
A friend of mine was 90 and rising when he was caught driving the wrong way down a one way street in an untaxed, uninsured and un MOT'd Maestro.
He represented himself in court and followed some advice I gave him based on what I'd seen happen myself (for reasons I won't go into I used to watch a lot of cases being conducted).
He admitted his guilt, submitted papers saying that he had a problem with alcohol with support from his doctor. Expressed his profound regret and asked the court to help as well as punish him.
He got a 12 month ban reduced to 9 months on completing the course.
Right or wrong the correct attitude can lessen the severity of the penalty.
Personally speaking and despite the advice I gave I believe that drink driving should be an automatic lifetime ban.
|
Personally speaking and despite the advice I gave I believe that drink driving should be an automatic lifetime ban.
take the point.......but......you have to give people something to aim for i.e. get the licence back, otherwise they'll just become permananent disqualified drivers, with no insurance etc..and be even more of a menace
|
I understand that viewpoint as well but the problem for me is that it's akin to saying 'well he only molested one little boy why not let him go back to teaching'.
If people drive uninsured after a DD ban then a spell in prison and massive financial penalties should result.
You wouldn't give a convicted armed robber a shotgun licence, likewise a drunk driver IMO.
|
I understand that viewpoint as well but the problem for me is that it's akin to saying 'well he only molested one little boy why not let him go back to teaching'. If people drive uninsured after a DD ban then a spell in prison and massive financial penalties should result. >> You wouldn't give a convicted armed robber a shotgun licence likewise a drunk driver IMO.
yes........but paedophilia and armed robbery are out and out criminal offences, done by people who have no regard for the law or the victim
drink/driving can be committed by the people listed above.....but.......equally, can be committed by someone who is in all other respects is a model citizen and on that occasion has made a mistake or allowed alcohol to fog their common sense
i'm not saying at all that drink/drive is allowable or excusable....just the punishment has to sometimes fit 'ordinary people in a mess' not your out and out crook
e.g good friend has keys to my house when we're away and him and his girlfriend look after the dogs.......10-12 years ago he got done for D/D......if he was a paedo or armed robber he wouldn't be a friend or have the keys to the house...he was wrong, paid his fine, endured his ban, realises he was wrong.....end of story.......the paedo in my book should be put down or at the very least castrated.......the armed robber should have a minimum 25 year sentence
in my view they're not in the same league......maybe that's the point......your penalty for motoring matters is too similar to more serious ones, because the system is knackered
|
|
"the correct attitude can lessen the severity of the penalty" ... well, in most courts the length of ban is based on what you blow rather than on contrition expressed.
If you get a different result then you've been very ... is "lucky" the right word here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ian,
I would suggest the duty brief at Court on Wednesday - this is a free service, he may find if his case is adjourned that an interim ban will be imposed. He was (nearly) twice over the limit
12 months is a minimum and not a maximum.
As regards your last paragraph the simple answer is "Yes"
Two options, get a brief now, but in all honesty I would suggest
a word with the duty on Wednesday before his case is called. You may find that if he appears unrepresented that the Court would adjourn his case simply to confer with the Duty and lead to wasting even more time.
Don't take any legal advice on a website - get a brief, even our
system allows for free legal advice on the day.
|
Well thanks for all the advice. He decided on a solicitor in the end, in court this morning, not that it did any good. His sentance...
16mths ban £300 fine, 4 months off if he completes the course. Rode the bus home, the first time of many.
This should be a salutory experience for anyone on the perils of drink driving.
|
|
Sounds about right. Has he had any more thoughts on doing the course?
|
|
|
Just re-reading and I picked up on this....
>>He said 9mth or 12mths is no difference and he'd rather not do the course,
Bit of a strange point of view that the education is so terrible that he would prefer to be off the road for an additional, and avoidable, period.
Do I assume, therefore, that he will be off the road for 16 months ?
And on a somewhat more obvious point...
>>This should be a salutory experience for anyone on the perils of drink driving.
There are drink-driving experiences which can be a lot more salutory than this, occasionally permanent.
|
|
Makes it safer for everyone else. Re-offending rate on drunk driving is still pretty high. Keep them off the road for as long as possible.
|
In seem to recall that the Police view the most dangerous of DUIs as the repeat offenders, typically male and typically 55 and over. It all stems from their having driven in the 1960s and 1970s when drink driving was, on the whole, ignored.
I certainly remember my late father and his friends used to all drink-drive in the 1970s and into the 1980s. Nothing I could say would stop him from considering it acceptable to have 3 or 4 pints and then drive a couple of miles home, which is why I used to take him to the pub so I could drive, having switched to soft drinks after 1 pint of something appropriately weak.
|
No Dosh,
You're right about mainly males over 55 as consistent and repeat offenders and they do make up a high proportion of positives on random testing.
Interestingly, given that bit of info - the majority testing positive after serious accidents are still youngsters (under 25). I wish I could lay my hand on the exact figures.
The suggestion in the article concerned was that although this hard core of older drivers needs attention, it's still important to concentrate on new drivers because the fewer (comparatively) that are involved are still responsible for more of the dreadful consequences.
I suspect it has much to do with a greater liklihood of accident with or without drink at those younger ages.
|
|
|
I agree, no-dosh, the trouble with a lot of the type you mention are the more affluent types, consequently they drive a better class of late model car that is rarely pulled by the Police on spec.
Went out lat night, SWMBO wanted a glass of wine so I stuck to J2O stuff - expensive and boring, good meal though.
|
|
|
|
Pugugly - you say reoffending rates are pretty high - I know the fact I got caught and especially the fact my reading erred on the high side are two factors that would stop me from doing so again.
No dosh - 1800 on Mini Cooper? I am keen to pursue a Polo Tdi (gp 4) or new Corsa 1.2 (gp 2) - Id guess these will be a fair bit lower in terms of grouping and about the same to insure given my age? (20 maybe 21 when I get a car.)
|
|
A lot of the premium will be loaded because of what you did and not the car you did it in. I don't doubt that you're a reformed character, but those who are not are likely to cost their insurers thosuands and there's no way for the insurance company to tell you and them apart. Therefore, you, particularly, will be subsidising them for 5 years after your conviction. I'd count on £1500 at least, probably more if you're under 21, even if you've still got some NCD left over from last time.
|
|
I remember my old great uncle who drove mini erratically around Berkshire used to say..."I drive better after I've 'ad a few".
|
It used to be better many years ago if your road home was a tram route, after the last car preferably. You kept the offside headlamp aligned with a tram rail, keeping in mind that thus you were not driving erratically even if it felt like it.
Hic!
Tomo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
