Disproportionate?! I Think Not!

each_uisge

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-16414691

As far as I'm concerned hit him where it hurts - lets hope the Scottish Courts system see sense and take his car off of him!

robpw2

i think they should crush the car in front of him as punishment

scheming_gypsy

I agree with the bloke and that they shouldn't be allowed to take his car.
You don't base the fine on the value of the car, drink driving or not the law states that the maximum penalty is £5000

boyse7en

Yeah, sounds great. So if I drink and drive, they can claim my £150 car! It would be much cheaper than a fine.

Basing the punishment on one aspect of the accused's estate makes no sense. If the max fine is £5k, which is based on the total value of the accused's holdings, then that is the max fine.

michaelvintner

He was caught Drink Driving, he was involved in a collision. He should be dealt with harshly but fairly. Taking away his property to the value of £23000 is not fair it is ridiculous.

He should lose his license for a considerable ampunt of time and be fined a hefty amount of money based on his income.

The maximum fine is the maximum fine. If the maximum he can be fined is £5000 you can't decided to fine him £23000 just because you feel like it.

mcfisco

The maximum fine is the maximum fine. If the maximum he can be fined is £5000 you can't decided to fine him £23000 just because you feel like it.

I'm guessing they probably can legally seize his car
Whether or not that's fair is another question

maninthestreet

Is the law in Scotland different to that in England, in relation to the punishment for drink driving?

scheming_gypsy

mcfisco wrote: »

I'm guessing they probably can legally seize his car
Whether or not that's fair is another question

Just had a quick Google and could only find (from Surrey police)

Why have the police seized my car?

[FONT=Verdana,Verdana][FONT=Verdana,Verdana]Section 165A Road Traffic Act 1988 gives police the power to seize vehicles which are being driven by uninsured drivers or drivers who do not have a valid driving licence or where a vehicle has failed to stop when required by police and there is a suspicion that the vehicle is uninsured. Driving without insurance and/or driving licence is viewed by Surrey Police as anti-social behaviour.

So from that I don't know if they can just seize them because they feel like it.
What would happen if he still had finance outstanding as well? He'd have to pay that off and have nothing to show for it, so it's bump the 'fine' up to, what, £45k to £50k ?
[/FONT][/FONT]

mcfisco

Here's a link that looks to confirm it

http://www.acpos.police.uk/News%20items/News_0501_2010.html

funkycoldribena

each_uisge wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-16414691

As far as I'm concerned hit him where it hurts - lets hope the Scottish Courts system see sense and take his car off of him!

You think 23k is fair? Maybe speeding tickets should be around 3k pro-rata?

mcfisco

Another quote I found

The powers of the Crown to order forfeiture of property used by offenders in Scotland to facilitate the commission of their crime have always been exercised more assertively than is the case south of the border – poaching in Scotland is very risky, as it is not unknown for the Crown to take possession of the premises at which the stolen fish or game is found!