roadtrafficlaw.com

Fine dodgers from Glasgow first to have cars clamped

admin — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 15:57:58 +0000

It has been reported in the Glasgow Herald, today that: Three people from Glasgow have become the first in Scotland to have their cars clamped over unpaid fines as part of a crackdown on motorists who try to dodge the penalties.
The Scottish Courts Service pledged earlier this year it would take tough action against fine dodgers. Yesterday it announced the three car owners had had their vehicles clamped after not paying.
The drivers had unpaid fines ranging from £45 to £180 for road traffic offences. The authorities have the power to clamp vehicles for unpaid fines for any offences.
All three have now paid the amounts owed, but they also had to hand over more money to meet clamping contractor’s expenses before their cars were released.
Eric McQueen, director of field services at the Scottish Courts Service, said: “The owners of these cars have had ample warning of the consequence of non-payment of their fine. I hope this sends out a clear warning to others with outstanding fines. We introduced new tracing facilities which make it easier for us to identify defaulters and deduct outstanding fines from their benefits, wages or bank accounts. It also helps us identify if they are a car owner, in which case we have powers to seize and sell the vehicle.
“We have issued warnings to car owners before and they normally pay up, but there are some people who still believe they can get away with not paying their fines.”
Fine defaulters are sent a warning letter with an enforcement order outlining what action can be taken before a car is clamped.
Once a vehicle has been clamped, its owner has up to 24 hours to pay the fine in full before the car is taken away to a storage yard. After it has been put in storage, it stays there until the fine and costs of clamping it and storing it are paid, or until the vehicle is sold.
The announcement came as it was revealed that six drivers face losing their vehicles after the third week of a crackdown on drink-driving. The number of people arrested dropped to 100 in the week beginning December 21, a reduction of 68 on the third week of the campaign last year.
However, they included six repeat offenders who fell foul of warnings that those with a previous conviction for drink-driving might have their vehicles taken away.
One of them, a 62-year-old man, has already had his Audi TT forfeited after pleading guilty to offences including drink-driving at Aberdeen Sheriff Court. Others have had their vehicles seized pending forfeiture.
Among those arrested was a 35-year-old mother who was found slumped drunk at the wheel in Dumfries town centre on December 23. Her four-year-old daughter was also in the car.
The woman, who was found to be four times over the limit, had her Mazda 121 seized pending forfeiture after appearing at Dumfries Sheriff Court.
So far in the campaign 353 drink or drug drivers have been arrested, down from 516 on the same period last year.

Article courtesy of The Herald 30/12/2009
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/transport-environment/fine-dodgers-from-glasgow-first-to-have-cars-clamped-1.995124

What do you think? Is our system moving to a more authoritarian regime? Does the punishment fit the crime?
Let us have your comments .Email us at mhm@roadtrafficlaw.com

Using a Mobile Phone While Driving – Expert Legal Advice

admin — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:24:22 +0000

Traffic Offence Scotland

admin — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:56:41 +0000

Sentencing Guidelines Scotland

Every case depends upon its own facts and circumstances and the personalities in the court where your case will be heard. For an informed discussion and advice on what you may expect by way of sentence in your own case just call us on 0800 612 9597 or go online to www.roadtrafficlaw.com/ask_a_lawyer.htm

o There are no sentencing guidelines currently in existence in Scotland. In other jurisdictions like England the Magistrates are issued with guidance on sentencing.

o Sentencing is a matter for the judge at first instance, who will consider each case on its own merits.

o The judge’s discretion is tempered by statute – which may provide for particular sentencing options, and occasionally, mandatory sentences – and the decisions of the Appeal Court.

o Section 197 of the 1995 Act, headed, “Sentencing Guidelines”, provides: “Without prejudice to any rule of law, a court in passing sentence shall have regard to any relevant opinion pronounced under section 118(7) or section 189(7) of this Act”. Sections 118(7) and 189(7) empower the Appeal Court, when disposing both solemn and summary appeals, to pronounce an opinion on the sentence or other disposal or order which is appropriate in any similar case. The Appeal Court has apparently seldom used this power to issue “advisory judgments” on sentencing matters.

Why

o The sentencing system in Scotland has the advantage of being flexible and fair: each sentence will be tailored to the specific circumstances of the offence and the offender. The sentencing process is wholly undertaken by an independent judge who will have heard all the relevant evidence.

Developments

o Recent research has found that although there is little evidence of widespread inconsistency in sentencing in Scotland, there is nonetheless a general perception of inconsistency.

o Consistency in sentencing is seen as an essential part of fairness and justice: “like cases should be treated alike”. Consistent sentencing which is transparent and predictable is said to be important to maintain public confidence in the justice system. It also allows practitioners to provide better advice to their clients.

o The Scottish Government has produced a consultation paper, Sentencing Guidelines and a Scottish Sentencing Council: Consultation and Proposals (September 2008) in which the establishment of a statutory sentencing advisory body – a Scottish Sentencing Council (SSC) – is proposed. The SSC’s main function would be to prepare draft sentencing guidelines for approval by the Appeal Court. Consultation closes on 21 November 2008. This paper followed a report by The Sentencing Commission for Scotland, The Scope to Improve Consistency in Sentencing (2006), which had made similar recommendations.

The Position In England

General

o The Sentence Guidelines Council (SGC), advised by the Sentencing Advisory Panel, is responsible under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 for producing sentencing guidelines. Before the SGC was established, the Court of Appeal had responsibility for producing sentencing guidance.

o Guidelines are produced for particular offences and classes of offences as well as on overarching principles, and issues such as reduction in sentence for a plea of guilty.

Road Traffic Offences

o Most of the relevant SGC guidance on road traffic matters is contained in the current Magistrates’ Guidelines (also produced by the SGC), which has a section on motoring offences (pp 117-140).

o Each offence (or class of offence) has its own separate guideline which charts the reasoning process that magistrates should follow when sentencing as well as giving a suggested appropriate range of sentences depending on the circumstances of the particular offence.

o The guidelines are generally structured as follows:

1. Name of offence and statutory provision

2. Statement of statutory minimum or maximum; whether statute provides any mandatory sentence

3. Reasoning process to be followed

· Form preliminary view of the appropriate sentence

o Appropriate starting point

§ Circumstances of the offence – starting point – range

o Effect of aggravating/mitigating factors

§ Non-exhaustive lists of factors indicating higher or lower culpability

· Consider offender mitigation (circumstances of offender)

· Consider guilty plea reduction

· Consider ancillary orders

· Decide sentence and give reasons

The full version of the Guidelines is available at: http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/docs/magistrates_court_sentencing_guidelines_update.pdf

Extracts from Magistrates’ Guidelines – Road Traffic Offences

The following tables are extracted from the current Guidelines and show starting points and ranges for common road traffic offences according to the circumstances of the offence. They do not reproduce the guideline for any particular offence in full. Reference is made to bands of fines: the approach to financial penalties is dealt with in detail in the Guidelines at pp 147 et seq.

Excess alcohol (drive/attempt to drive) (s 5(1)(a) RTA 1988)

Alcohol level			Starting point	Range	Disq	Disq if 2nd offence in 10 years
Breath (mg)	Blood (ml)	Urine (ml)
36-59	81-137	108-183	Band C fine	Band C fine	12-16 months	36-40 months
60-89	138-206	184-274	Band C fine	Band C fine	17-22 months	36-46 months
90-119	207-275	275-366	Medium level community order	Low level community order – high level community order	23-28 months	36-52 months
120-150 and above	276-345 and above	364-459 and above	12 weeks custody	High level community order to 26 weeks custody	29-36 months	36-60 months

Dangerous driving (s 2 RTA 1988)

Examples of nature of activity	Starting point	Range
Single incident where little or no damage or risk of personal injury	Medium level community order	Low level community order Disqualify 12-15 months
Incident(s) involving excessive speed or showing off, especially on busy roads or in built up area OR Single incident where little or no damage or risk of personal injury but offender was disq driver	12 weeks custody	High level community order to 26 weeks custody Disqualify 15-24 months
Prolonged bad driving involving deliberate disregard for safety of others OR Incident(s) involving excessive speed or showing off, especially on busy roads or built up area, by disq driver OR Driving as described in box above while being pursued by police	Crown Court	Crown Court

Speeding (s 89(10) RTRA 1984)

Speed limit (mph)	Recorded speed (mph)
20	21-30	31-40	41-50
30	31-40	41-50	51-60
40	41-55	56-65	66-75
50	51-65	66-75	76-85
60	61-80	81-90	91-100
70	71-90	91-100	101-110

Starting point	Band A fine	Band B fine	Band B fine
Range	Band A fine	Band B fine	Band B fine
Points/disq	3 pts	4-6 pts OR disq 7-28 d	Disq 7-56 d OR 6 pts

Police Stations Procedures for Requests for Blood or Urine Samples in Drink Driving Cases

admin — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 13:07:48 +0000

Sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 provides the procedure which must be followed by the police when samples of blood/urine are taken.

The admissibility of those specimens as evidence against a motorist depends upon the procedures being followed correctly. We always seek the 4:8:1 form that should be a record of the procedures followed and often therefore acts as the cornerstone of our cross examination in such cases. We will also seek sight of the intoximeter log to ensure that it was working properly on the day of the given sample.

As a suspected drink driver you have a legal obligation to provide a laboratory sample when one of the four reasons set out at section 7(3) occurs. BUT before such a sample is taken the driver needs to be provided with certain information by the police:

he has to tell the motorist the reason under terms of s.7(3) why breath specimens cannot be taken or used in this matter;
he should tell the driver that in those circumstances he is required to give a sample of blood or urine, but that the officer will decide which. Many drivers believe that they have the choice but this is wrong, the choice is with the police officer dealing with the case.
he must warn the driver that a failure to provide the sample required may result in prosecution;
and if he has asked for a sample of blood,
he should ask the driver if there is any medical reason why a specimen cannot or should not be taken by a doctor.

When, in the circumstances set out at section 8(2), a driver may choose to replace a breath specimen by supplying a laboratory sample,

The officer should inform the driver of the nature of the option open to him and what will be involved if he exercises it;

he must inform the driver that the specimen of breath which he has given containing the lower proportion of alcohol exceeds the statutory limit; but does not exceed 50 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath;
he should inform the driver that in the circumstances he is entitled to claim to have this specimen replaced by a specimen of blood or urine if he wishes; We have heard countless tales of drivers claiming that the police officer told them not to bother as it would serve no real benefit to the…Rbbish, you should, where the opportunity arises ask for a blood sample to be provided. If there are medical reason why you cannot give blood then make sure that these reasons are stated and recorded.
he police officer should ask the driver if there are any medical reasons why a sample of blood cannot or should not be taken. Having read the above if you thnk the procedures for you were any different then get in touch and we may be able to win your case and save your driving licence.

166mph on a motorbike on a road with a 60mph limit in Scotland has been jailed

admin — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:58:09 +0000

Published: By The Telegraph 12:06PM GMT 28 Oct 2009

Purves, 27, was jailed for nine months and also handed a five-year driving ban after reaching the top speed on the A702 near West Linton, Peeblesshire, earlier this year.

Police caught Purves on May 13 when they were alerted by a ”high-pitched engine noise” while on patrol.

Peebles Sheriff Court heard that one of the officers involved, a man of 28 years’ experience, was ‘’shocked” at the ”excessively high speed” achieved by Purves.

Fiscal depute Alastair Learmonth told the court: ”The speed libelled (charged) of 166mph is thought to be the highest speed recorded on a public road in Scotland.”

Purves, from Cockburnspath, Berwickshire, earlier admitted a charge of dangerous driving.

His lawyer argued the case for a non-custodial sentence, saying his client was a man of good character who had been ‘’seduced” by the power of his high-speed bike.

Sheriff John Horsburgh told Purves: ”The speed at which you were driving this motorcycle makes a custodial sentence the only appropriate one.”

The court heard Purves was clocked on the stretch of road between West Linton and Dolphinton at around 7.25pm.

When police caught up with him, their equipment recorded that he had reached 166.15mph on his Suzuki bike, the court was told.

Mr Learmonth said: “It appears that Mr Purves did not dispute the speed recorded.”

Defence lawyer Graham Walker said his client, who has now sold his bike, was of good character, remorseful and was “normally a mature and reasonable young man in every way”.

He said it was clear no other vehicles were using the road at the time and nor were any cars parked nearby.

“I think it’s fair to say the level of risk that the public were subjected to was very low but there was considerable danger, I think, to the accused himself,” he told the court.

Mr Walker said that Purves’s parents had been “extremely supportive” of him, but he added: “They have also been extremely angry about the risk that he took that day.”

Purves’s speed was “appalling”, Mr Walker said, but stressed his client posed a low risk of re-offending.

“It’s fair to say that superbikes or motorbikes of this kind may have a seductive speed appeal and I think it’s also fair to say that Mr Purves was seduced by that element of speed on a long, quiet, straight stretch of road,” he said.

Sheriff Horsburgh reduced Purves’s sentence to nine months from a starting point of 12 months on account of his guilty plea.