News1 min ago
Drug Driving
This news story interested me in that the woman was 4 times over the driving drug limit for cocaine – but only received a years driving ban and a nominal fine.
Had she been 4 times over the drink drive limit – she would have been looking at a far lengthier ban and monetary fine (and possibly jail time).
Never having taken cocaine, I don’t know whether there is a correlation between the amount taken and a persons ability to control a motor vehicle, as with alcohol (which could explain the 1 year ban).
http:// www.dai lymail. co.uk/n ews/art icle-56 04807/S ir-Alex -Fergus ons-ex- daughte r-law-3 8-banne d-drivi ng.html
Had she been 4 times over the drink drive limit – she would have been looking at a far lengthier ban and monetary fine (and possibly jail time).
Never having taken cocaine, I don’t know whether there is a correlation between the amount taken and a persons ability to control a motor vehicle, as with alcohol (which could explain the 1 year ban).
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Hymie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.Strange that the Mail make the claim, when the Govt website states
‘The government is unable to provide any guidance on what amounts of dosage would equate to being over the specified limits. There are too many variables, such as physical characteristics, where each person will metabolise the drug at different rates. Eating or drinking will also have an effect on the blood concentration’
Another fantastic piece of DM journalism designed to appeal to it’s ‘angry of tunbridge wells’ Readers mentality.
‘The government is unable to provide any guidance on what amounts of dosage would equate to being over the specified limits. There are too many variables, such as physical characteristics, where each person will metabolise the drug at different rates. Eating or drinking will also have an effect on the blood concentration’
Another fantastic piece of DM journalism designed to appeal to it’s ‘angry of tunbridge wells’ Readers mentality.
She cited 'special reasons' for not being banned .But got a ban any way. We can not know what the 'special reasons' were as the court does not disclose them. But that is likely to be the reason the ban was not longer. You can also avoid a DD ban if you have 'special reasons' for not being given a ban. Common ones are that driving is essential to care for a disabled relative or that it is essential for business and other people's jobs / safety also depend on you being able to drive.
.well it is a newish offence - 2015 - previously driving whilst out of it or something - and I didnt think they would draw parallels to alcohol.
And indeed they dont - this is guidance and not a guideline ( o dear god)
https:/ /www.se ntencin gcounci l.org.u k/wp-co ntent/u ploads/ Drug-dr iving-g uidance -final- 1.pdf
and their lordships pussy foot around the issue
And indeed they dont - this is guidance and not a guideline ( o dear god)
https:/
and their lordships pussy foot around the issue
EDDIE the "special reasons" that you quote are in fact the "exceptional hardship" circumstances which relate to the knock on effects should the accused receive a ban of the normal length. "Special reasons" relate to the actual circumstances of the offence, for instance, the driver had to drive while under the influence because it was the only way to get someone to hospital for emergency treatment.
-- answer removed --