DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
*****************************************************
#Post#: 30137--------------------------------------------------
140mph speeding
DIR By: DrSatan
Date: July 17, 2024, 4:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Put this here as it's not an actual case (well, it is, but not
mine)
There was an article on the BBC website yesterday about how a
driver had been caught doing 140mph on the A9 in Scotland, and
it got me thinking about sentencing for that level of speed.
The A9 isn't a motorway, but if this had been on a motorway and
the car had been caught be a camera, there's obviously no FPN
available at that speed. So it's a court summons, and a ban
(which guidelines say should be considered as more than 56 days
when the speed is greatly in excess of the limit) and / or a
fine of up to 150% of weekly income.
Or the keeper could just ignore the s172 and take the 6 points
and a fine of £1000, which may be less than 150% of their
income.
Now I'm obviously not going to drive at that speed (the only way
my car's doing 140mph is if it gets dropped off a cliff and
reaches terminal velocity), but what would the cops do in that
situation? Would they be stuck with the s172 offence and unable
to ban the driver if their licence was previously clean?
I'm assuming there's something obvious I've missed?
#Post#: 30140--------------------------------------------------
Re: 140mph speeding
DIR By: slapdash
Date: July 17, 2024, 5:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There is a general power to disqualify for any offence. Perhaps
that might be considered.
#Post#: 30147--------------------------------------------------
Re: 140mph speeding
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: July 17, 2024, 5:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
In Scotland you could also/alternatively be convicted of
dangerous driving based on speed alone.
We had a case on PePiPoo where a poster's car had been caught
speeding at 120mph (presumably in a 70 limit or possibly a 60).
He was aware that the confession to being the driver was sought
using the coercion of tell us who was driving "or else", and
realised that the "or else" would result in a significantly
lesser punishment and failed to respond to the s. 172 notice. He
was charged with both the speeding and the s. 172, and plead
guilty to the s. 172. He was convicted of the s. 172 and the
prosecution were not able to prove the speeding. As regards the
standard sentence for the s. 172 (I forget whether it was 3 or 6
points at the time), the prosecutor apparently went into full
Vicky Pollard mode and sought to argue, yebbut he was doing 120,
to which the court responded that he hadn't proven that the
accused was driving.
In some cases, particularly with motorbikes where the leathers
can be distinctive and easily seen in the evidence, and more
worthwhile speeds are easily achievable, the po-po might
actually do some police work.
#Post#: 30206--------------------------------------------------
Re: 140mph speeding
DIR By: NewJudge
Date: July 17, 2024, 1:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> Would they be stuck with the s172 offence and unable to ban
the driver if their licence was previously clean?
--- End Quote ---
Yes they would. Precisely because of this:
--- Quote ---
> ...the prosecutor apparently went into full Vicky Pollard mode
and sought to argue, yebbut he was doing 120, to which the court
responded that he hadn't proven that the accused was driving.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 30210--------------------------------------------------
Re: 140mph speeding
DIR By: Southpaw82
Date: July 17, 2024, 2:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
They wouldn’t be unable to ban the driver (leaving aside that
the police don’t ban anyone). Section 34(2) of the Road Traffic
Offenders Act 1988 allows the court to disqualify for any
offence involving obligatory endorsement, which s 172 does. The
difficulty would be convincing the court to do so.
#Post#: 30228--------------------------------------------------
Re: 140mph speeding
DIR By: NewJudge
Date: July 18, 2024, 5:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> The difficulty would be convincing the court to do so.[quote]
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
Indeed. With no aggravating features there is no justification
for imposing a ban for a s172 offence. The excessive speed
cannot aggravate the s172 offence because there is no evidence
that the driver and the recipient of the s172 request are one
and the same.
#Post#: 30232--------------------------------------------------
Re: 140mph speeding
DIR By: The Rookie
Date: July 18, 2024, 6:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DrSatan link ---
>
> which guidelines say should be considered as more than 56 days
when the speed is greatly in excess of the limit
>
--- End Quote ---
They do but the Sentencing Council for England and Wales'
guidelines have no meaning in Scotland, while a Scottish court
will very likely be tending to a substantial ban for that speed
it's nothing to do with any guidelines.
I believe I recall the same case as AF on Pepipoo which I had in
mind was for 122mph and on a motorway (70 limit), as I recall
the S172 was 6 points by that time but memories can be fallible.
But the progress of the case and the prosecution 'yebbut' is as
I recall.
#Post#: 30430--------------------------------------------------
Re: 140mph speeding
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: July 19, 2024, 2:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: NewJudge link ---
>
> The excessive speed cannot aggravate the s172 offence because
there is no evidence that the driver and the recipient of the
s172 request are one and the same.
>
--- End Quote ---
I don't see why the s172 offence cannot be aggravated by the
underlying offence. Let's say that I'm not the driver but am the
RK and I fail to name a driver who was doing 35 in a 30 at 2 am,
there isn't really anything aggravating about that.
Now let us say that my mate is driving at 3:30 pm and he does
120 mph past a school while there are children out and about, is
that s172 offence arguably more serious than the previous
scenario?
I would say that it is: a court could take the view that failing
to name the driver accussed of a more serious offence is itself
more serious than failing to name a driver accused of a less
serious offence.
That's not to say that a court would (let alone must) take such
a view, but unless there are any authorities to the contrary
then the Crown could run the argument and invite the court to
disqualify.
#Post#: 30440--------------------------------------------------
Re: 140mph speeding
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: July 19, 2024, 2:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Would it be a defence or mitigation for an s. 172 offence if it
were shown that the underlying offence was not or could not have
been committed? Or even that it was utterly trivial?
I would suggest that if it could somehow be shown (as opposed to
merely suspected) that the accused had deliberately failed to
provide the information then the intent could increase the
seriousness of the criminality, and that an intent to avoid the
course of justice for a more serious offence would tend to
increase it further.
However, I would suggest that the accused would have to
seriously go out of his way to shoot himself in the foot for the
above to happen.
#Post#: 30455--------------------------------------------------
Re: 140mph speeding
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: July 19, 2024, 4:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: andy_foster link ---
>
> However, I would suggest that the accused would have to
seriously go out of his way to shoot himself in the foot for the
above to happen.
>
--- End Quote ---
I don't disagree, but it does tend to happen from time to time
that people shoot themselves in the foot, I've seen it a lot
recently.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page