drink driving ban over

vaio

and shortly to be one year for fines

more to the point, are endorsements covered by ROA?

Joe_Horner

vaio wrote: »

and shortly to be one year for fines

more to the point, are endorsements covered by ROA?

No they don't appear to be. The conviction they're based on is, but the rehabilitation period is based on the penalty for that conviction, and an indorsement isn't a "penalty" per se. It's simply a record that a conviction occurred and a penalty (fine / disqualification / absolute discharge / whatever) has been imposed.

Requiring you to admit to endorsements would also require you to admit to the spent offence itself (a DD10 can only mean you have a DD conviction for example), and the ROA is quite explicit that you don't have to answer questions which reveal a spent conviction indirectly.

vaio

but surely endorsements qualify as "other penalty" referred to below and thus don't become spent until they "cease to have effect" which I'd say is either when they can no longer be used to affect sentencing of subsequent offences (so three years for non DD and ten years for DD) or when they can be removed from your licence (so 4 & 11 years respectively)

....(8)Where in respect of a conviction an order was made imposing on the person convicted any disqualification, disability, prohibition or other penalty, the rehabilitation period applicable to the sentence shall be a period beginning with the date of conviction and ending on the date on which the disqualification, disability, prohibition or penalty (as the case may be) ceases or ceased to have effect....

thinking about it, the above must be the case as DD offences within ten years are taken into account in sentencing for subsequent DD offences despite being spent after 5 years (for the fine) or likely sooner for the ban

thenudeone

vaio wrote: »

and shortly to be one year for fines

more to the point, are endorsements covered by ROA?

An endorsement with points is treated as a conviction on the date of the offence.
Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 s58
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/53

Not sure about the endorsement relating to a ban, though.

Joe_Horner

vaio wrote: »

but surely endorsements qualify as "other penalty" referred to below and thus don't become spent until they "cease to have effect" which I'd say is either when they can no longer be used to affect sentencing of subsequent offences (so three years for non DD and ten years for DD) or when they can be removed from your licence (so 4 & 11 years respectively)



thinking about it, the above must be the case as DD offences within ten years are taken into account in sentencing for subsequent DD offences despite being spent after 5 years (for the fine) or likely sooner for the ban

That's already covered in the ROA s.7(2):

(2)Nothing in section 4(1) above shall affect the determination of any issue, or prevent the admission or requirement of any evidence, relating to a person’s previous convictions or to circumstances ancillary thereto—
(a)in any criminal proceedings before a court in Great Britain (including any appeal or reference in a criminal matter);

The ROA specifically allows for otherwise spent convictions (any spent convictions - not just DD ones) to be raised in criminal matters (but not civil).

In fact, rather than relying on this general "loophole", the 10 year rule for taking a previous DD into account in sentencing is a very specific case prescribed by s.34(3) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act which has the sole purpose of increasing the minimum ban from 12 months to 3 years in such a case.

That is also specifically allowed for under the ROA s.7(1)(d):

(1)Nothing in section 4(1) above shall affect—

[...]

(d)the operation of any enactment by virtue of which, in consequence of any conviction, a person is subject, otherwise than by way of sentence, to any disqualification, disability, prohibition or other penalty the period of which extends beyond the rehabilitation period applicable in accordance with section 6 above to the conviction

In other words, if some other Act imposes something that extends beyond the rehabilitation period then that "something" is still legitimate. But so is the rehabilitation period for all other purposes (ie: purposes not expressly containeed in that other Act).

The only purpose contained in the RTOA in respect of DD convictions is an increase of sentence for repeat offenders, for all other purposes - particularly non-criminal matters such as contracts - the conviction is spent according to the sentence (fine / imprisonment / whatever)

If you think about it, that is absolutely logical according to the intent of the ROA. People make mistakes. If caught and punished, they will be given the benefit of the doubt if they pass a certain time without reoffending. Beyond that point, the law says (rightly) that no-one should face further penalty for a mistake made in their past.

The habitual drunk / drink driver is extremely unlikely to go for over 5 years (the rehabilitation for a fine) without reoffending. Those who go that long are most likely to have been the foolish / accidental ones who made a genuine mistake - such as misjudging the morning after. They shouldn't be further penalised and they're actually very unlikely to pose any increased insurance risk on the road either.

vaio

in that case I can foresee much lobbying by the insurance industry as, when the new rehabilitation periods come in, a DD given a 12 month ban (spent when it finishes) and a fine (spent after a year) could get away without having to mention it to insurers at all.

Joe_Horner

It could get interesting!

My personal opinion is that the insurance industry as a whole use a lot of "false" risk factors because they're convenient and easy to justify in public opinion, even if there isn't much evidence to support them.

We're all quite happy to accept that (for example) a drink driving conviction increases the future risk from that driver, but why? I'll be quite honest that in my younger days, there but for the grace of God (and a very understanding Policeman on on occasion)....

Yet I'm an insurer's dream - 27 years now of paying premiums every year and never even claiming for a parking scratch.

vaio

and, thinking about it, just because you comprehensively demolished the totting/DD example I gave, doesn't necessarily mean that a civil court wouldn't regard an endorsement as "other penalty", the rehabilitation period for which is when they cease to have effect.

This would allow insurers to require disclosure of most offences for 3/4 years and DD for 10/11 even after the new rehabilitation periods come into force.