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.
6 comments:
This is coming up more often in the traffic court, particularly given the backlog for driving tests. In some areas, the waiting list can be equivalent to a 6 month disqualification, and that assumes the newish driver passes their test again after a long wait. I do think this a case where the guideline can be out of step with reality and can lead to unjust outcomes.
This isn’t uncommon. I recall an appeal at the Crown Court where the judge brushed aside my concerns that this was against the direction we were given on sentencing and leads to inconsistent sentencing - which magistrates are often criticised for - and circumvents the intention of parliament.
Perhaps the solution would be to add “consider disqualification” to the cat 3 guideline so that the bench can be just, knowing the facts of any particular case. I have little sympathy for blatant disregard of the law but some cat 3 offences can be unintentional error or oversight with pretty severe consequences.
I do share your frustrations. I am entirely confident that if this case went to appeal the judge wouldn't bat an eyelid about saying "we'll just disqualify him". In that situation, I doubt the two Magistrates would dig their heels in.
This is a good point I think. By all means change the guidelines but while they’re in place I think we’re obliged to apply them. Personally I’d like to see a bit more flexibility on the No Insurance guidelines.
Maybe the DVLA guidelines need to be adjusted?
Post a Comment