Search results

Because you might then have an understanding of proportionality and how common (relatively) Careless Driving offences are. A ban and a retest are more in the realm of Dangerous Driving rather than Careless.

I have very little sympathy for people who are minted and can afford a taxi or to pay for a driver. They often try it on though so fair play to Knocky for putting his hand up.

The speeding guidelines for 110 mph in a 70 are 6 points OR disqualify for up to 56 days, so yes 6 or 12 months would be disproportionate. I'm always amused when the "Hang 'em and Flog 'em" brigade start clattering on about how its ridiculous and how any sentence should have been more severe...

I dont think there is a maximum, but any sentence should be proportionate; if, for example, the bench had given hm a 3 year ban then he could have appealed to the Crown Court. Never been near the place. I was a magistrate in Eastbourne/Hastings for 9 years.

The bench obviously considered this a category 1 offence by virtue of the sentence. to make it category 1 there has to be both greater harm and greater culpability than a "benchmark" for the offence. Penalty for a category 1 is 7-9 points or disqualification (unlike drink driving or totting...

It was 110 in a 70 zone. However, reading the article it says the police had to do 110 to try and catch him but only got to him when traffic slowed him down so it looks like they couldn't actually measure his speed so he was done for Careless Driving. (The maximum points for speeding is 6)

As I understand it, the DVLA creates a driver record and puts 9 points on it so he has, got them here but not in France. If he were to get another 3 points (against Palace hopefully) then he could be disqualified for totting but he would still be able to drive in France.