The BBC has the story, with which most of us are familiar, of a man who drove a car, mercifully with a friend beside him, without having the traditional asset of a pair of eyes, or indeed of any eyes at all.
One has to feel for the duty CPS person, who had to decide what to charge. Dangerous driving it was then. Pretty hard to deny that one, in all the circumstances.
Sentencers have had their discretion limited little by little over the years, and the sentencing court in this case had no alternative (it's here on page 162) to imposing a ban and requiring a compulsory re-test. Naturally, that looks ludicrous, and the press have taken full advantage of the opportunity to imply, nudge-nudge, that the courts are stupid and gullible. The man was given a suspended prison sentence (more press mockery, but what the hell is the point of cluttering up a cell with this guy?).
Whoever sentenced this bloke was asked a silly question, and the law required them to give a silly answer. What else could have they have done?
(Thanks to Bill for the link)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Posts are pre-moderated. Please bear with us if this takes a little time, but the number of bores and obsessives was getting out of hand, as were the fake comments advertising rubbish.