Facing court and potential driving ban - any advice?

Sgt_Pepper_2

Yorkie1 wrote: »

Jamie's earlier post is correct in its outline of sentencing guidelines and court procedure. The court MUST award a 12 month disqualification - this is set down in statute - and can also consider whether to offer you the opportunity to subsequently reduce this to a given level by completing the drink/drive rehabilitation course within a certain timeframe (which should also be announced in court).

The reduction in sentence for an early guilty plea cannot reduce the 12 month statutory minimum, as suggested above.

OP, you may find this guide I've found online as an additional useful resource for the day itself.

I never suggested it could be. It's the completion of the course that reduces it. Must be done within a set time and said for. I think it takes 16 hours.

Sgt_Pepper_2

vax2002 wrote: »

You need to get the 12 month ban first, go in with the excuse you "thought" you were OK to drive and it wont be a 12 month ban.

It will he he pleads guilty.

Harry_Flashman

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

You will also have to pay a victim surcharge in addition to the fine (which is £15),

What's all that about? There is no victim.

Crazy_Jamie

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

What's all that about? There is no victim.

It's a fairly recent compulsory addition to financial penalties, and is a set amount (apparently steps are in place for it to be increased, but it is currently £15). It is not dependent on there actually being a victim in the case; it is an automatic addition whenever a fine is imposed by the Court. The name is reference to the fact that the money raised from the Victim Surcharge supposedly goes broadly towards the umbrella of victim support and the organisations involved in it, and not to the victims in individual cases.

Crazy_Jamie

vax2002 wrote: »

You need to get the 12 month ban first, go in with the excuse you "thought" you were OK to drive and it wont be a 12 month ban.

Absolute rubbish. Indeed, if it is true (which it appears to be) I would probably make a point of saying in mitigation that he honestly believed that he was under the limit. Stating that can do no harm, and it certainly won't increase the length of the ban.

Sgt_Pepper_2

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

What's all that about? There is no victim.

Still need to pay it.;)

Sgt_Pepper_2

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

Absolute rubbish. Indeed, if it is true (which it appears to be) I would probably make a point of saying in mitigation that he honestly believed that he was under the limit. Stating that can do no harm, and it certainly won't increase the length of the ban.

Vax has form for such statements of !!!!.

Harry_Flashman

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

Still need to pay it.;)

OK, just seems daft to equate crimes where there are victims with those where there aren't.

Tis true - the law is an !!!. :T

Delivery_Driver

You are most likely going to get a ban.They will not let you off because you are not quite as fat as you used to be.

Sgt_Pepper_2

Delivery_Driver wrote: »

You are most likely going to get a ban.They will not let you off because you are not quite as fat as you used to be.

He will get a ban if convicted, no ifs no buts.