Lifeline Thrown to Isle of Wight Drug Driver in Breach of Community Order

Benevolent Magistrates have thrown a lifeline to an Isle of Wight drug driver in breach of his community order.

George Pipes, 33, of Quay Lane, Brading, admitted being in breach of the order when he appeared at Isle of Wight Magistrates' Court on Friday, 8th August 2025.

The order, which includes 120 hours' unpaid work and 30 days' rehabilitation activity requirement, was originally made on 6th October 2023, as a result of Pipes' conviction for driving whilst over the specified limit for BZE. It had already been extended from 12 months' to 24 months' to afford Pipes the opportunity of compliance.

Pipes crashed his tipper van whilst more than eleven-times the specified limit of the cocaine metabolite, yet told the court he had no idea at all how the drug had entered his body.

Addressing the court at the breach hearing, a representative of the National Probation Service said that the 33-year-old had demonstrated "wilful non-compliance" with the order. He had completed only four hours of unpaid work and attended only seven days' rehabilitation activity requirement.

Despite Pipes' abysmal level of compliance, probation asked the court to give him one more chance to complete his sentence.

Appearing unrepresented, Pipes told the court that he was a father of six and had "lots of debt", but acknowledged that was no excuse for his poor level of compliance.

Magistrates agreed to extend the order by a further 12 months.

The Presiding Justice said: "This is two years now. If there's another breach, you're looking at custody and that'll really mess up your life."

In cases where there is wilful and persistent non-compliance with a community order, the court's usual step is to revoke the order and replace it with a custodial sentence - irrespective of whether the original offence crossed the custody threshold or not.

Bladdered Cheshire Woman Failed to Provide Specimen

A "very intoxicated" Cheshire woman failed to provide a specimen of breath for analysis after managing to wrap her car around a lamppost.

Karen Marron, 60, of Rockfield Drive, Helsby, admitted failing to provide a specimen for analysis when she appeared recently at Chester Magistrates' Court.

It is an offence under section 7(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for a person, without reasonable excuse, to fail provide a specimen for analysis when required to do so. The maximum sentence on summary conviction is a fine at level 4 and/or 3 months' custody.

Magistrates heard that police were called to a single vehicle road traffic collision in Frodsham on Saturday, 26th July 2025. On arrival they found Marron sat in the driver's seat of the vehicle, which had collided with a lamppost.

Paramedics attended the scene and concluded that the 60-year-old was "very intoxicated", but did not require any medical attention.

Marron was arrested and conveyed to North Cheshire Custody Suite, where she was required to provide an evidential specimen of breath. She made an unsuccessful attempt to provide the first specimen, which resulted in the machine timing out and her telling the officer that she "didn't understand" the instructions.

The 60-year-old confirmed that she had no medical reason for failing to provide a specimen, which resulted in her being charged with the offence.

Richard Sibeon, mitigating, reiterated that his client had tried to blow into the maching, but her "anxiety and rapid breathing" had defeated the process.

"It wasn't a deliberate refusal, but she's not going down the route of pleading not guilty", said Mr Sibeon.

"She would have liked to have provided a sample or would have had blood taken, but it wasn't offered."

The court heard that Marron had no previous convictions.

Given the circumstances, Magistrates' were of the view that the matter could be resolved by way of a financial penalty.

Marron was fined £432 and ordered to pay £173 surcharge and £85 towards prosecution costs.

She was also disqualified from driving for a period of 24 months, but can reduce that by 24 weeks if she successfully completes the drink-drive rehabilitation course.

This articles leads nicely onto a comment I recently made on X: a drink drive suspect cannot delay a breath test by requesting to speak to a solicitor. This is because any delay will result in the depletion of alcohol in their body, so asking to speak to a solicitor could be used as a tactic by unscrupulous types to escape prosecution.

It should also be noted that a drink drive suspect does not have the right to choose to provide a specimen of blood or urine in place of breath. Breath is the standard method of obtaining a specimen. The police will only offer an alternative if the evidential breathalyser appears to be defective or the suspect appears to have some legitimate (e.g. medical) inability to provide a specimen of breath. The personal preference of the suspect doesn't come into it.

New Driver Begs Court for Disqualification

An unusual case from the archives today, with a newly qualified driver begging the court to impose a disqualification for his driving transgression.

The driver in question had passed his test only a few months before being caught driving without valid third party insurance. Given his limited driving experience, he was still subject to the two-year probationary period stipulated in the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995. A newly qualified driver who accumulates 6 penalty points during the probationary period has their licence revoked by the DVLA and has to pass a retest in order to regain their substantive driving licence.

Driving without insurance is a very common offence. It is nearly always dealt with by way of a Band C fine and 6 penalty points. However, the relevant sentencing guideline, which the court is duty bound to follow unless it considers it unjust to do so, allows the imposition of a discretionary disqualification instead of penalty points in some circumstances.

The guideline, which can be viewed here, stipulates that offences of lower culpability and lesser harm (category 3 offences) should result in the imposition of 6-8 penalty points, whereas more serious offences (category 1 and 2 offences) can be dealt with by way of a discretionary disqualification or penalty points.

The way the legislation works, many newly qualified drivers consider it advantageous to have a short discretionary disqualification instead of 6 penalty points, because it means they do not need to pass a retest. The newly qualified driver in question, with the help of his solicitor, had everything worked out - "my client would ask you to consider a one week disqualification, because he can take a week's leave and it won't impact on his work".

It was good in theory, but didn't quite work out in practice because the bench thought it was only a category 3 offence - e.g. one that should attract 6-8 points instead of disqualification. In passing the new driver legislation, Parliament's obvious intention is to penalise those who offend during the probationary period. It would not be right to manipulate the sentencing process by deeming an offence more serious than it really was as some sort of crude workaround.

In accordance with the guidelines the newly qualified driver was handed a Band C fine and had his licence endorsed with 6 penalty points, which meant it would be revoked by the DVLA. Clearly frustrated he could be heard cursing the decision as he left the courtroom - he was obviously expecting the bench to sentence the offence at his convenience.

That's not how things work. The court decides the sentence; the defendants do not.

Absolute and Conditional Discharges

Discharges are the lowest level of sentence that the court can impose.

There are two types of discharge - an absolute discharge, which effectively means a line is drawn under the matter; and a conditional discharge, which means an offender will escape further punishment unless they reoffend during the period of the discharge.

According to the Sentencing Council, in 2024 around 3 percent of offenders sentenced were made subject to a discharge. That does seem a bit on the low side to me, because in my own experience conditional discharges are fairly common.

Absolute discharges:

An absolute discharge is a sentence available to the court by virtue of section 79 of the Sentencing Act 2020.

An absolute discharge can be imposed in relation to any offence that is not subject to a mandatory sentencing requirement.

An absolute discharge is appropriate when the court, having considered the circumstances of both the offence and offender, considers it inexpedient to impose any other punishment.

A fairly typical example of where an absolute discharge might be imposed is where an offender is already a serving prisoner. Suppose an offender is already serving 12 months' for burglary and they come before the court for a far lesser offence - e.g. drunk and disorderly or low value shop theft. An absolute discharge could be used to "tidy up" that new offence.

An absolute discharge might also be an appropriate sentence for an offender who had successfully argued special reasons in relation to a driving offence.

The court could also impose an absolute discharge in circumstances where an offence has technically been committed, but no culpability can be attached to the offender. In those cases, the court might consider the prosecution process is punishment enough.

Imposition of an absolute discharge in no way affects the court's ability to impose ancilliary orders (e.g. disqualification, compensation, restitution, costs etc.)

No surcharge is payable when the court imposes an absolute discharge.

Conditional discharges:

A conditional discharge is a sentence available to the court by virtue of section 80 of the Sentencing Act 2020.

With a few exceptions, a conditional discharge can be imposed in relation to any offence that is not subject to a mandatory sentencing requirement. Exceptions include breaches of youth conditional cautions, criminal behaviour orders and sexual harm prevention orders.

A conditional discharge is appropriate when the court, having considered the circumstances of both the offence and offender, considers it inexpedient to impose any other punishment. It is made on the condition that the offender does not reoffend for the period of the discharge.

There is no minimum period for a conditional discharge, but there is a maximum period of 3 years.

If the offender does reoffend during the period of a conditional discharge, then the court can resentence them for the offence for which the discharge was imposed in addition to the new offence committed.

In effect a conditional discharge hangs over the head of the offender until the expiry of the discharge period. This means a conditional discharge can be used to encourage the good behaviour of an offender. It also means that a conditional discharge is a more severe sentence than an absolute discharge.

If the offender is resentenced for the offence for which the conditional discharge was imposed, then the discharge is superceded by the new sentence.

Imposition of a conditional discharge in no way affects the court's ability to impose ancilliary orders (e.g. disqualification, compensation, restitution, costs etc.)

The statutory surcharge is payable when the court imposes a conditional discharge.