Points discount leads to rise in road offence guilty pleas

Big Brother Cameras Enforce MORE driver fines

More Fines for Bus lane drivers

An interesting article on the  STV website today..

Motorists in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen could face fixed penalties of £60 later this year after the Scottish Government approved plans to fine drivers who go through bus lanes

Big brother will be watching as it looks like the camera companies have managed to persuade our elected representatives that we need, even more watching. Measures will be enforced by a series of cameras which will be installed along major bus routes in the cities.

Many of us are all too aware that Glasgow and Edinburgh have already installed cameras on their main bus roads – STV reported that ten have been set up in Edinburgh’s city centre and key routes out of the city and 12 have been put in place in Glasgow.

If you feel strongly about it then you should contact your local Councillor as they  will need to plan exactly how the scheme will work in each city and seek the final approval from local councillors and then the Scottish Government before enforcement can begin later this year.

My own concern is that if we de criminalise this then how will the driver have a right of appeal and how will this be funded. I assume they envisage something similar to the parking fines appeals procedure controlled by a civil authority and NOT the courts. I do not consider that courts should be clogged with such offences, especially since no points will be attributed to this type of driving but due consideration requires to be given to the fairness and cost of a review system.

A Glasgow City Council report written in 2012 estimated that as much as £250,000 could be earned in the first year from the scheme. I am sure that we all would like to see real transparency in the subsequent spending of this new found money. How much is raised and where has it gone? Has it fallen down a black hole of operting costs for camera company etc etc

Council bosses claim that they plan to reinvest the money into city transport infrastructure.

The cameras will take a note of the number plates on all the vehicles which drive on bus lanes and a computer will confirm whether the plates are registered to buses, taxis or emergency vehicles.

Another camera will record a video of the incident which will be checked manually before a fine is actually issued.

Edinburgh transport convenor Gordon Mackenzie welcomed the new laws. Speaking to the Herald, he said: “Illegal use of these lanes can cause unnecessary delays to bus journeys and accidents but once these cameras are up and running I’m hopeful we will see a sizeable reduction in these problems.”

Under the old system, only the Police could enforce bus lane regulations by issuing a £30 fine after a local order has been passed by the council.

The exact level of the fines is still to be decided, however it is understood that a fine similar to the £60 fixed penalty notice for parking is being considered.

Euan Ross and others -Penalty Points

Further to my blog the other day we have now received the 61 page judgement in connection with a conjoined hearing regarding 7 appeals against sentence.

Euan Ross is one of the  aforementioned cases.

Our little bird called it right when we were told that penalty points can be reduced in Road Traffic cases but unfortunately it looks like we still cannot get away from the statutory minimum of 3 points.ie If Parliament has stated that you get at least 3 penalty points for the contravention then that remains the case even if you plead guilty at the first calling of the case.

The case does state that penalty points and disqualification have to be taken as a punishment element and indeed discounts can be applied where the court considers that an early plea merits this.  Paragraph 167 (Final paragraph) makes it clear that disqualification and penalty points may be subject to a discount in appropriate circumstances. However it states "As sentencers cannot impose a sentence below the statutory minimum, which is a feature of both disqualification and penalty points, those who plead guilty in cases where the minimum sentence of disqualification or penalty points would have been selected in any event, CANNOT obtain a discount in respect of those parts of the sentence. " Clearly the appropriate part of any discount would be reflected in the fine.

Shame as I felt that if the minimum points could be reduced by way of decent mitigation and an early plea there could have been a real significant utilitarian benefit to all as we could clear the lower courts of a vast number of road traffic trials taken by those people appearing with 9 live points and a desperate desire to avoid a 6 month ban.

Statutory minimum sentences can of course be altered where we have the likes of the Drink Drive Rehabilitation Scheme. Successful completion of same means that a driver can reduce a courts sentence by up to 25% hence a 12 month statutory minimum sentence can in fact be reduced by up to 3 months through further statutory provisions of the Road Safety Act 2006

Perhaps our courts should be able to order that drivers undertake further training (At their expense) and reduce the penalty points imposed dependent upon successful completion of some advanced driving style course.

The alternative to prosecution scheme is widely used in England and seems to be worth rolling out on a larger scale where the courts are entitled to exercise their discretion over a wider range of speeds. This would thereby encourage safe driving habits and skills  and  not just penalise drivers with bans and penalty points.

The bottom line of the 61 pages judgement seems to be that we cannot take sentencing discounts of 1/3 rd to for granted. They have to be earned and we now have more direction from the High court about where they apply and the starting point for their consideration.

Since the decision in Du Ploy and section 196 of the 1995 Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act there has been a firm expectation of a 1/3rd sentence discount where an early plea was tendered but it would seem that the accused will no longer be able to rely on this expectation.

We will have to see how the bench interpret the guidance laid down in this case and see if it makes a palpable difference to how cases are dealt with on a day to day basis. If we see a strong movement away from the 1/3 rd early plea discount we will soon see our court clogging up with cases again.

Justice is certainly not about money but the public do derive a significant financial benefit when cases end at an early stage in proceedings. Some of the statistics referred to in this case demonstrate that point, all too clearly.

Figures for 2005/2006 indicate that an early plea in a High court case would cost the public purse, on average, £348 however if that case went to trial the expected costs would be in the region of £17,492. For a Sheriff court solemn case the average cost of prosecution would be in the region of £6,720 but if dealt with by an early plea £129.

Money is a significant factor but clearly not the most important factor. We should not discount early guilty pleas simply to save a few quid for the public purse. The main issue is how justice is done and how it is perceived to be done by the public in general. If we get into the land of horse trading cases and plea bargaining we may get into the dangerous ground where innocent people feel compelled or pressured into a guilty plea as they prefer the odds in securing a lower sentence. Confidence in our system of justice is at the heart of the matter and a fine balancing act requires to be done by our Judges, Sheriffs and Magistrates in all of our courts.  We will require to rely upon what our Australain cousins refer to as the process known as "instinctive synthesis" (Markarian -v- R HC Australia 25)

It is interesting that the courts seem to be slightly ahead of the legislature on this one by demonstrating that the law in England and Wales is different from Scotland when it comes to speeding offences and other road traffic matters.

As we know the Scotland Bill, when/if passed, will allow the Scottish Government to tinker with the legislation not just in relation to tax raising powers but in relation to matters such as penalty points in speeding cases.

In England and Wales they have the Sentencing Guidelines Council who have issued guidelines on sentencing that suggest that penalty points and disqualification periods should NOT be taken into account when establishing any sentence reduction period. We previously had a similar position following the case of Rennie -v- Frame 2005 SCCR. However, now those shackles have been removed and our courts can take a sensible common sense approach to sentencing in road traffic cases and apply  discount to the points or the period of disqualification where it considers this to be appropriate. The public remain protected, in that statutory minimum sentences cannot be reduced (Except where there is statutory provision to allow same, e.g. Where a Drink Drive Rehabilitation course has been completed)

If/when the Scotland Bill receives royal assent, one wonders if the Scottish Government will be at the forefront of a new penalty points system that rewards drivers for completing further driver training, or if they will just bludgeon Scottish drivers with higher penalty point tariffs and more speeding fines. If they simply go down the "big stick" route they will be open to justified criticism from Scottish drivers who just see these fines as a further road tax. They may also find that there would be a significant political tariff to pay if our drivers felt hard done by.

Increased points and higher penalties will do little or nothing to enhance road safety and the mind set of drivers in Scotland.

We know that the Drink Drive Rehab Scheme works as there has been plenty of supporting evidence published. Speed Awareness Courses seem to work in England but are not widely used in Scotland. The Scotland Bill gives us a chance to address road safety using the "Carrot and the Stick". These courses can be self financed by offending drivers and they can have a significant long term benefit in changing driver attitudes, skills and abilities making the roads safer for all of us.

Traffic Offence Scotland

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’s 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)

Dangerous driving (s 2 RTA 1988)

Speeding (s 89(10) RTRA 1984)