A Newcastle man has been convicted of driving whilst disqualified for the seventh time.
Gary Land, 35, of Hawthorn Close, Benwell, admitted a charge of driving whilst disqualified when he appeared at North Tyneside Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, 11th August 2020.
He also admitted charges of driving without insurance and obstructing a police constable in the execution of their duties.
Driving whilst disqualified is an offence under section 103 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. It has maximum penalty of 26 weeks' custody and/or a fine at level 5 (unlimited) on summary conviction.
Prosecutor Rebecca Gibson, outlining the facts of the offence, said a police officer had cause to stop Land's Mazda in York Drive, Wallsend, on 27th May 2018 (which seems a while ago, but we'll assume that date is correct).
The officer noticed that Land appeared "extremely nervous" at being pulled over.
Mrs Gibson continued: "The defendant gave his name as Darren Walker. Checks for Darren Walker were carried out and no results were found.
"The defendant continued to be very, very nervous and the officer was suspicious he had been provided with false details.
"The defendant was asked to go into the rear of the police vehicle and it was explained to the defendant's partner that she would have to leave the car as it was being seized.
"The officer asked the partner what the defendant was called and she said "Gary"."
The court heard that Land was warned about the implications of lying to the police and was given two further opportunities to reveal his true identity but failed to do so.
It was not until he was being arrested and handcuffed that Land finally confessed his real name.
Outlining the defendant's antecedence, Mrs Gibson told the bench of two Justices that Land had six previous convictions for driving whilst disqualified, with FIVE of those from 2017.
Andy O'Hanlon, mitigating, said Land was a family man who was in employment.
Trevor Topey, Presiding Justice, said: "Your driving record is not a very good one.
"In fact, during my service on the bench, this is one of the worst I have come across and I'm really not impressed by it.
"We have taken everything into consideration and, because of the nature of your bad driving record, we believe a period of custody is appropriate."
Land was sentenced to 12 weeks' custody suspended for 12 months.
He was disqualified from driving for a further 3 years and ordered to pay £115 victim surcharge and £85 towards prosecution costs.
Before commenting further, I shall give the normal health warning that reports in the local press are seldom a reflection of the full circumstances of an offence.
The reporter never has all the information available to the court; they focus on the outcome, often in the most salacious manner possible, without mentioning the rationale behind any decisions taken by the bench.
In this particular case, which appears to have several aggravating features, one would suspect that Mr O'Hanlon has done a very good job of dissuading the bench from imposing an immediate custodial sentence. His argument must have been quite compelling.
It is unfortunate that his full mitigation, and indeed the bench's rationale for arriving at the sentence it did, have gone unreported.
Whenever pronouncing the disqualification of a driver I always make it abundantly clear: "You are disqualified from driving a motor vehicle in any public place from this moment on. You commit a serious offence - and one which often leads to imprisonment - if you drive a motor vehicle in a public place in breach of this disqualification."
I know colleagues always issue a very similar warning.
Land has now chosen to ignore that advice on seven separate occasions, which demonstrates a clear disregard for the orders of the court. Members of the public reading the outcome of this case will perceive, rightly or wrongly, that he has received very little punishment for doing so, which in turn erodes confidence in the justice system.
We're not talking a one-off oversight here (or even a two-off, or three-off oversight) - Land clearly has no qualms about driving around when disqualified, without insurance and thereby putting ordinary members of the public at heightened risk.
As if that isn't bad enough, he clearly has no qualms about lying through his teeth to the police in an effort to save his own skin.
Given the details as reported, immediate custody would have been at the forefront of my mind.
At least the next bench will have 38 weeks' custody in hand if Land breaches his disqualification for an eighth time within the next 12 months.
No comments:
Post a Comment