There are few things that fill the court with a greater sense of trepidation than an unrepresented defendant.
One thing that just about tops that is an unrepresented defendant who chooses to ignore the advice they are given and thinks they can conduct proceedings on their own terms.
In the not too distant past a defendant fitting that description appeared before the court accused of drug driving.
It is an offence under section 5A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for a person to drive or attempt to drive a motor vehicle on any road or other public place when the concentration of a specific drug in their blood or urine exceeds the specified limit.
The maximum penalty on summary conviction is 26 weeks' custody and/or a fine at level 5 (unlimited). The offence also attracts an obligatory disqualification of at least 12 months.
The defendant before the court, who I shall refer to as Mr Robinson, was a middle aged man of previous good character, who had indicated a willingness to admit the offence with which he was charged - namely that he had been caught driving his Transit van in the town centre when the concentration of a specified drug in his blood, namely the cannabis metabolite THC, exceeded the specified limit, namely 2 microgrammes per litre.
It was put to Mr Robinson that he might like to consult the duty solicitor prior to entering his plea, as the offence was punishable by imprisonment and would result in his disqualification. The defendant refused to take up that offer, even though he was told it would be in his best interests and at no cost to himself.
The case was called on and the defendant rose to his feet. The Legal Advisor put the charge to him and asked him to indicate a plea. The reply came: "Well, err, I suppose if they (the police) are saying that then I must be guilty".
The Presiding Justice interjected: "Mr Robinson, you don't sound too certain. Are you sure you wouldn't like to consult the duty solicitor? We have time available and can come back to your case later on."
The defendant replied: "No, that's fine. I just want to get this sorted, so I'll plead guilty."
Presiding Justice: "So you are admitting this offence?"
Defendant: "Yes, guilty."
Presiding Justice: "Very well, we will accept that plea."
The prosecutor then rose to his feet and outlined the circumstances of the offence. It was late in the evening and police noticed that Mr Robinson's recently purchased Transit van was driving through the town with a broken headlight.
The officer required Mr Robinson to stop to discuss the defect. When the officer approached the stationary van he was hit by the pungent aroma of cannabis. On speaking further to Mr Robinson, the officer was of the view that he was impaired by drugs and required him to undergo the drug wipe procedure. That preliminary test was positive, so Mr Robinson was arrested on suspicion of driving whilst unfit through drugs.
At the police station a blood sample was taken by the custody nurse. Subsequent analysis of that sample confirmed the presence of 3.5 microgrammes of THC in 1 litre of blood, which exceeded the specified limit of 2 microgrammes. On receipt of those results Mr Robinson was charged with the offence for which he appeared before the court.
The Legal Advisor then asked Mr Robinson to rise to his feet, tell the court his side of the story and raise any points in mitigation.
Mr Robinson rose and explained that on the evening in question he had fallen out with his partner, so headed to the pub to defuse the situation. Mindful that he was driving, he hadn't consumed any alcohol. However, an acquaintance offered him some cannabis to help take his mind off the situation at home. Foolishly he accepted the offer and smoked a couple of joints earlier in the evening.
Mr Robinson said he had just bought the van a few weeks earlier, as he was trying to set up a new gardening business. He had also invested heavily in tools, so his savings had been depleted. As the business was just getting off the ground, he had no disposable income.
The Legal Advisor asked: "The Magistrates need to have an idea of your income so they can sentence you. How much money do you take home at the end of the month?"
Defendant: "Erm, nothing - I am not making any money. I've spent a fortune on the van and have nothing."
Legal Advisor: "Well you must be making some money to live on, or are you claiming benefits?"
Defendant: "Well, erm, some months I make £500 and other months I barely make £100."
Legal Advisor: "So what would you say your earnings are in a typical month?"
Defendant: "Erm, I really can't tell you. I make barely anything."
Legal Advisor: "The Magistrates need a figure to work with."
Presiding Justice: "Mr Robinson, you have told us that some months you make £500 and other months you make £100. That being the case, the Bench is going to work on the assumption that your typical monthly income is at benefits rate."
The Bench then retired to consider how they were going to sentence the defendant.
Around 10 minutes later the Bench returned and the Presiding Justice gave the decision.
Presiding Justice: "We place this in category 2 in our guidelines, as we view this as an offence of greater culpability - by virtue of the fact you were driving a vehicle adapted to carry goods - and lesser harm.
"That gives us a starting point of a medium level community order. There are no real aggravating factors and the court is mindful that you are a man of previous good character, which is to your credit. That being the case we think a low level community order would be more appropriate.
"However, in this case, even though the offence crosses the community threshold, we do not think you require the intervention of the Probation Service. That being the case we are going to deal with this matter by way of a Band D fine as an alternative to a community order.
"You will also be disqualified from driving for 17 months."
Defendant: "17 months? 17 months? You're taking the piss like. Real criminals..."
Presiding Justice: "Yes, 17 months. For the next 17 months you must not drive a motor vehicle on any road or other public place. If you do so you commit a very serious offence and one you can go to prison for. Towards the end of that 17 months it is your responsibility to reapply to the DVLA to get your licence back. You must not drive again until you have that licence back in your possession."
Defendant: "17 months? That's a joke like. I mean, I've not hurt anyone..."
Presiding Justice: "That's all we have for you today Mr Robinson, you're free to go."
Defendant: [Kicks furniture] "17 months? That's my business and house gone then. You're joking me?"
Presiding Justice: "Mr Robinson, it is clear that you disagree with the sentence we have imposed today. That being the case I should mention that you have 21 days to appeal to the Crown Court if you wish to do so."
Defendant: "Aye, right... 17 months... [walking out of door] bunch of twats."
Driving whilst under the influence of drugs is an increasingly common problem. We get just as many of these offences as we do drink drive offences.
Mr Robinson might feel hard done by, but he's now one less dangerous drug impaired driver on the road.
No comments:
Post a Comment