English Justice Anomalies

unholyangel

oneye14 wrote: »

Police and Politicians have been telling us for years how serious it is to drive without insurance - this person was also disqualified and obstructed a Policeman in carrying out his duties...
Perhaps you should wonder why criminals laugh at the justice being dished out.

As above, we have no idea of circumstances or what was offered in mitigation.

For example, if his insurance had failed to renew or been cancelled due to a returned direct debit. Its highly unlikely they would receive the same penalty as someone who has been driving for 5 years without ever insuring themselves.

Or perhaps it was because he lied on his insurance form and said he wasnt disqualified - which invalidates his insurance and technically he's driving without insurance.

robatwork

I was wiped out while stationary in my car recently by a driver who had lost control. He hit me and 2 other cars and wrote off both mine and one other (over £7k of damage).

I sustained minor injuries while the occupants of one other car had to be cut out by the fire service as the severity of the collision prevented their doors being opened. They sustained more substantial injuries.

There were independent witnesses.

He was prosecuted and found guilty of driving without due care and attention.

He was fined £40 and his licence "endorsed".

And once more for effect. £40.

bubblesbonbon

dodger1 wrote: »

Just to make things clear what exactly are you complaining about?

The context of the penalties with regard to the seriousness of the offences together with the arrogance of the perpetrators with regard to the law and it's ultimate effect on our understanding of relevant justice. (I think)

dodger1

bubblesbonbon wrote: »

The context of the penalties with regard to the seriousness of the offences together with the arrogance of the perpetrators with regard to the law and it's ultimate effect on our understanding of relevant justice. (I think)

But the first of the two was dealt with far more heavily than the second. It was a far more serious offence (although we aren't told of any mitigating circumstances) and was dealt with much more severely.

The fishing licence person pays his £282 and his life carries on as normal. The driving guy pays his £145, he can't drive for twelve months, his insurance will shoot up and will have an effect for years to come (yes I know only if he pays it).

Not being able to drive may also affect job opportunities in the future and may even result in losing any job he has at the moment. He was also ordered to do community work although we don't know how many hours. So all in all his penalty was far more severe.

Jim_Jupiter

robatwork wrote: »

I was wiped out while stationary in my car recently by a driver who had lost control. He hit me and 2 other cars and wrote off both mine and one other (over £7k of damage).

I sustained minor injuries while the occupants of one other car had to be cut out by the fire service as the severity of the collision prevented their doors being opened. They sustained more substantial injuries.

There were independent witnesses.

He was prosecuted and found guilty of driving without due care and attention.

He was fined £40 and his licence "endorsed".

And once more for effect. £40.

Whilst the overall outcome of the incident was far from pleasant, the punishment fit the crime he was found guilty of.

Jim_Jupiter

dodger1 wrote: »

But the first of the two was dealt with far more heavily than the second. It was a far more serious offence (although we aren't told of any mitigating circumstances) and was dealt with much more severely.

The fishing licence person pays his £282 and his life carries on as normal. The driving guy pays his £145, he can't drive for twelve months, his insurance will shoot up and will have an effect for years to come (yes I know only if he pays it).

Not being able to drive may also affect job opportunities in the future and may even result in losing any job he has at the moment. He was also ordered to do community work although we don't know how many hours. So all in all his penalty was far more severe.

Absolutely, the punishments given out go far more deeper than simply adding up the monetary costs to each offender.

PZH

dodger1 wrote:

....he can't drive for twelve months

Didn't stop him last time...

bubblesbonbon wrote:

....Driving while disqualified, community order, £60 victim surcharge, 12 months driving ban

And..

bubblesbonbon wrote:

...driving without insurance, no separate penalty, £85 costs

They can't get insurance anyway because they are disqualified. So this is ABSOLUTELY pre-meditated and intentional !!!

dodger1 wrote:

....his insurance will shoot up and will have an effect for years to come (yes I know only if he pays it).

My heart bleeds....


And finally.

bubblesbonbon wrote:

....Breached a conditional discharge, no action taken.

So can someone explain to me - what is the point of a "conditional" discharge ????

dodger1

PZH wrote: »

Didn't stop him last time...



And..



They can't get insurance anyway because they are disqualified. So this is ABSOLUTELY pre-meditated and intentional !!!




My heart bleeds....


And finally.



So can someone explain to me - what is the point of a "conditional" discharge ????

The argument isn't about whether the drivers punishment was lenient or not (and I agree that it was), the discussion is about the punishment handed out for the two different offences.

patman99

Yes, the Magistrates Court can throw-up some strange outcomes.
A couple of years back, the following 2 cases were reported in my local rag -

Case 1
Man is caught drink-driving (he was over the limit by 5Mg and was driving a small child's pedal car that he had converted to run off batteries. He was driving it across a cul-de-sac to his friends house to show him the finished project). He got an 18 month ban & a £250 fine.

Case 2
A woman gets caught dropping her 2 kids off at school whilst 4 times the legal limit. She was driving an MPV. She got a 12 month ban & a £125 fine.

So, to sum up. You can get rat-ar5ed and drive down the road in a vehicle capable of 100 mph & get a 1 year ban, or, drive across a cul-de-sac in a battery operated car with a top speed of 4 mph whilst only just above the limit & get an extra 50% long ban & twice the fine.

Common sense?. Go figure.

Nilrem

Patman, the thing is usually if you've got the full details of the case things make a bit more sense.

I'm guessing there was more to your two cases than reported (there usually is a lot more), which might explain it.

For example in case one the man might have had a history of driving offences (or been banned previously for drink driving), whilst the woman might have managed to convince the magistrates she had no idea she was over the limit (a lot of people get caught the 12-18+ hours after a heavy drinking session, often when they have had a nights sleep and 'feel fine').

The British justice system often throws up what seem like odd results because almost every case is dealt with on an individual basis, and the judge or magistrates have to weigh up all sorts of factors - everything from "was it planned", to the history of the person, to how likely they are to offend again, or where there any mitigating circumstance, and then decide on a punishment that can vary depending on things like income.
IE most fines are based partly on the persons "free" income after housing and food costs etc, with different offences set to have a different possible range of fine - so a low level fine might be a weeks income, a mid level fine might be 3-4 weeks income, and a high level one 4-6, whilst at the same time there might also be limits on the maximum fine allowed (for example the £1000 for letting your dog poop on the pavement and not clearing it up - it's almost never anything like that high, but I suspect if a professional dog walker was letting their charges do it, it could be much higher than Granny's Yorkshire terrier).