Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Pathetic Bravado
The cocky little twerp in this report has had his moment in court but has also put himself in the front row of the local traffic police wish list. Now that he is disqualified, if he carries on driving he moves into the imprisonable sentencing range.
Just one thought though - given the horrendous speed that he reached why didn't the CPS charge Dangerous Driving?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It also states he is unemployed. I work and can't afford a car like that.
ReplyDeleteHe hired it.
DeleteAnd the hire cost for such a car by a 24 year old with his driving record?
DeleteWish I could hire a car on £71 a week.
DeleteThe going rate (clean licence) from a national car hire company, I've just established in an idle moment, is an eye-watering £1139 per day, or a snip at £4468 for the week. Top speed quoted as 194 mph by the way.
DeleteApparently to hire the car its a £3500 deposit and £450 a day. I wonder if he is receiving a "supplementary benefit"?!
DeleteI used to work a (standard, not prestige!) hire desk. Typically, you can't hire (because of insurance) with >6 points, but a driving while disqualified would be an automatic bar to a hire firm anyway. Which suggests they should also do him for fraud, because I can't believe someone hired that car to him without checking his licence.
DeleteThe problem with dangerous driving is always that he can make the argument that his speed was not dangerous per se in the conditions - which on an empty motorway at 5am is not as stupid an argument as it sounds. People have got off on it before.
Maybe he's a high-earner between careers who may be unemployed but not claiming.
DeleteMaybe he has a rich Daddy.
DeleteAnyone who can hire such a car can afford the right legal team.
DeleteIsn't dangerous driving either way? Maybe they were worried he'd elect to go upstairs and it would be expensive?
ReplyDeleteBet there's an unmarked traffic car at the end of his road tomorrow morning.
Whilst he may have been driving at excessive speed, it's possible that his driving was not dangerous in itself.
ReplyDeleteBeing charged with two offences for the same activity, it's likely the easier one to prosecute and prove (i.e. the absolute offence of excess speed) is the one they went for.
The end result was disqualification, so probably not all that far from the sentence for dangerous driving (although I stand to be corrected on that).
Given that the case took over 2 years to come to court, and he claims not to remember the incident due to a brain injury, perhaps his circumstances have changed since the offence?
ReplyDeleteGiven the previous post regarding Criminal Procedure Rules, I wonder how this took 2 years to come to court? It appears dead simple. There is police helicopter video evidence, there is a police chase and in car video evidence. Did he not plead Guilty?
DeleteIt took two-years to come to court? Summary only cases are usually time-barred if not before the court within 6-months of the date of the offence!
DeleteThe summons may have been issued within the six months of course which would have stopped that particular clock running...but why it took that long to trial, goodness only knows...Some courts are listing 6 months ahead, and if a couple of trial dates had cracked for whatever reason that could account for the time delay...
DeleteHe is also reported (yes - I know it was in the Daily Mail) as having a conviction for possession of cannabis with intent to supply. That may have been dealt with at the Crown Court and the summary driving case held back awaiting the outcome, albeit unusually as it is a dissimilar matter.
DeleteThe article notes he said he told the court that he would continue to drive and challenged the police to catch him and the article went on to suggest that he should be charged with contempt of court. Is this something that would actually be feasible if not likely. I wouldnt have thought a statement like that would be classed as contempt?
ReplyDeleteI think it very unlikely that a contempt charge would fly. He's not exactly insulted the court as such albeit he had (it seems) indicated a desire to commit a further offence.
DeleteNo doubt as other posters have said, the boys in blue will have him firmly in their sights and he may soon be able to try that bravado while banged up with far harder types than he could ever dream of...
Only been a JP for a year but I thought contempt fell into two parts - (1) insulting behaviour towards a member of court staff, JPs, etc, or (2) disrupting or interrupting the process of justice. While he made idle and unsubstantiated threats to continue to drive, I don't think it's contempt. My more experienced colleagues will no doubt help me out here...
DeleteA case called MILTON decided that speed is not, in itself, dangerous driving.
ReplyDeleteSince 1977, and the entry into force of s50 Criminal Law Act 1977 (which redefined dangerous driving), the higher courts have been reluctant to find dangerous driving on the basis of speed alone, and even in the 2009 case of Bannister (an experienced police driver who lost control and crashed on the M4 whilst driving - with surface water lying - in torrential rain at 113mph), the Court of Appeal substituted an offence of careless driving. I understand the Scottish courts have taken the view that excessive speed can amount to dangerous driving, though the editors of Wilkinson's seem to gently deprecate this stance. It is worth perhaps recalling that the maximum fine for speeding is £2,500 on a motorway or £1,000 on other roads, and the length of ban must be proportionate with those for demonstrably more serious offences of drink driving and dangerous driving per se. As for any contempt charge, with a maximum of one month's custody (in reality much less therefore) available in the magistrates' courts (as opposed to 24 months in the higher courts), and the need to remain proportionate there too, it would have been a pretty empty gesture to pursue that route IMHO. Like others, I am intrigued by the time the case took to come to court, and the implications of that delay.
ReplyDeleteOK he's a cocky little twerp, and clearly everything is not as it seems in relation to his income source ! However, if he drove on a German autobahn on an unrestricted section, nobody would bat an eyelid ! I found that very high speeds on German autobahns were very rare in the three years of visting Germany. I finally found out that German insurance only covers the car up to the recommended limit of 130 kph (or about 81 mph). Most people go along at similar speeds to ours except almost all our motorists are breaking the law whereas they are adhering to it.
ReplyDeleteIMHO we should harmonise our limit at 80 mph, to become virtually the same as the rest of Europe.
In Germany, the excessive speed may be taken to be an indication of fault in an accident (note, MAY, not WILL).
DeleteIf so, then the insurance payout MAY be reduced, even if you are the "innocent" 3rd party, but speed is considered to be a (partial) reason for the accident.
It is not clear and cut, and different court instances have set slightly differnt precidences.
Still, it never ceeses to amaze me that I can be driving along at 85 - 95 mph, and I'm the slowest on the road!
Dear anonymous - your confession of driving at 85-95 has been noted and you will receive a summons shortly. :-P
DeleteFor the purposes of the Magistrates blog, I always drive well within the speed limit.... at least since driving at 122 was frowned upon by magistrates about 10 years ago.
Most German autobahns are too congested for such speeds unless you really, really, want to die driving. 80 mph? Fine if every entrance and exit is monitored by average-speed cameras so that 80 means 80.
ReplyDelete