Sentences for drivers who drive under the influence, without insurance, without a licence etc too lenitent.

[Imaybeoldbutstillrandy]

I'm incandescent.

A person was speeding, lost control & crashed into 3 cars, including one with a friend's daughter, SIL & three young children in. It was their 2nd offence for driving without insurance, no licence, under the influence, had drugs in the car etc - what sentence do they get a fine (apparently, because they're on benefits they're paying about £10 per month), a 3 year ban from driving & 12 week suspended sentence? 😡As if that will stop them from doing it again?

Surely this is far too lenient considering how they endangered several people's lives - not to mention the inconvenience to my friend's DD's SIL who's car was written off, they have to buy new car seats & the general hassle for them? Not to mention the trauma for the children, luckily the youngest was only 3 months old, but the others were 3 & 6. Their 2 oldest are still nervous about being driven around & scared about another crash. They're having counselling.

This happened 2 years ago & has only just gone to court which doesn't help the children as they needed to know that the 'naughty man' was going to face the consequences. 2 years for an 6 & 3 year old is a VERY long time to wait for consequences.

My thought is, if they knew that they would go to prison for 6 months minimum, they might think twice.

But then the prisons are packed to over-flowing so probably that is a consideration when sentencing.

I have no doubt that my MN friends will have something to say about this.

Sentences for those who commit crimes when behind the wheel are too lenient. There should be an end to any exemption or leniency for alleged hardship for starters.

As for driving bans, some should be for life, you are never allowed behind the wheel ever again.

Agreed.
Also: using phone when driving, repeated speeding fines both result in insufficient punishment.

It seems that driving is increasingly considered a right and only doing something incredibly terribly justifies taking away that right even for a short period. So people are banned for driving for very short periods even for repeated driving offences.
And if you tell a magistrate that you will face "hardship" not being able to drive, they often don't place any ban.

We need to see driving a a privilege and a big responsibility, not a right, and be more comfortable with the idea that some people should not be permitted to drive.

If you cannot take the responsibility of driving safely then you do not have any right to drive.

The hardship clause in avoiding driving bans is particularly galling as in which other crime can you say "don't punish me because it will be inconvenient and disruptive for me".

Punishment should be a hardship and inconvenient and disruptive . Otherwise its not a deterrent!

And if you kill someone behind the wheel the sentence is a fraction of what it would be if you'd killed that same person/people in other circumstances. It's often as little as a couple of years. It's an outrage!

An alternative for some crimes that would really hurt many who commit them when behind the wheel would be no passport for several years. The average Range Rover driver I doubt is someone who never leaves these shores.

I agree, however DH & me have a Land Rover Discovery & we do go abroad sometimes (twice in about 8 years).

But our house is down an unadopted private road/track which we share with 2 other properties. We're lucky in that every so often the farmer at the end of the road fills in the worst of the potholes & does something with his harrow & tractors to make the surface as even as best he can. We keep talking about how we really need to get it sorted with a better surface, but our share would be about £20K & the other properties share similar issues with us as there is always something more urgent needs to be done. For example, this year our septic tank sprang a leak & needed attention, 2 years ago the thatch had slipped around the chimney & needed to be sorted, then we discovered that the water supply that we all share (that comes from a well supplied by underground springs) was contaminated & we had to put in filters to filter out the contaminants which cost a blinking fortune for us all as the pumps needed to be replaced as well.

We have to have 4 wheel drive as in bad weather we couldn't get in/out of our house onto the main road without it.

We also have the occasional foreign holiday when we can arrange for one of our children to move in to take care of our livestock, garden etc - not often, but we live in hope.

Was it adjourned as they submitted a not guilty plea? Driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence and no insurance have a six month limitation of proceedings. It would have to have been listed for the initial hearing eighteen months ago.

Is this some sort of humble brag OP? Presumably as you are the one who wrote the post, you'd think more than once about driving drunk, etc., so the relevance of what you've got, is completely lost on me regarding this post!

Given that your grandchildren were victims, why isnt there some sort of 'offence' of committing a crime when children are the victims/present?

Including a jail term and having to be in something similar to the sex offenders register?