Kemi Badenoch In The News Today... At...
Politics0 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://
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.
“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.”
No no no no nooo, Eddie.
As woofgang has correctly pointed out, “Special Reasons” (not to endorse with points or disqualify) for motoring offences must relate to the offence itself, not the offender or his circumstances. For drink driving an example would be that the drinks were unknowingly spiked. For speeding an example would be that the driver or passengers faced an immediate threat to his of their life or safety and the only way to counter that threat involved breaking the speed limit.
Magistrates have no discretion but to impose a disqualification for driving whilst over the prescribed drink or drug limit other than if “Special Reasons” such as I have described are present. The reasons you describe amount to “Exceptional Hardship” that woofy has mentioned. This application is only available to avoid or reduce disqualification following a “totting up” ban and is cannot be used for bans resulting from single offences. Having said that, if her “Special Reasons” argument was indeed on the basis you mention, it is clearly ridiculous and would never succeed.
Back to the question. Magistrates have guidance when dealing with Excess Alcohol offences that relate the level of alcohol measured to the seriousness of the offence and hence the suggested sentence. There is currently no equivalent authorised guideline for driving over the drug limits. However some basic informal guidance has been published (to which Peter kindly provided a link). Some of the salient points:
“At present there is insufficient reliable data available from the Department for Transport upon which the Sentencing Council can devise a full guideline. For that reason, and given the number of requests for guidance that have been received, the Sentencing Council has devised the attached guidance to assist sentencers.”
“The limits for illegal drugs are set in line with a zero tolerance approach but ruling out accidental exposure. The limits for drugs that may be medically prescribed are set in line with a road safety risk-based approach, at levels above the normal concentrations found with therapeutic use. This is different from the approach taken when setting the limit for alcohol, where the limit was set at a level where the effect of the alcohol would be expected to have impaired a person’s driving ability. For these reasons it would be wrong to rely on the Driving with Excess Alcohol guideline when sentencing an offence under this legislation.”
” It is important to note that this guidance does not carry the same authority as a sentencing guideline, and sentencers are not obliged to follow it. However, it is hoped that the majority of sentencers will find it useful in assisting them to deal with these cases.
“The Sentencing Council will, in due course produce a guideline with the assistance of evidence and data gathered by the Department for Transport. Any new guideline will be made subject to public consultation before it is finalised.”
So, Hymie, you “…don’t know whether there is a correlation between the amount taken and a persons ability to control a motor vehicle, as with alcohol..” And neither does the Department for Transport. Hopefully the above extracts will help you understand why the court did not sentence in the same way as it might have for an offence of Excess Alcohol.
No no no no nooo, Eddie.
As woofgang has correctly pointed out, “Special Reasons” (not to endorse with points or disqualify) for motoring offences must relate to the offence itself, not the offender or his circumstances. For drink driving an example would be that the drinks were unknowingly spiked. For speeding an example would be that the driver or passengers faced an immediate threat to his of their life or safety and the only way to counter that threat involved breaking the speed limit.
Magistrates have no discretion but to impose a disqualification for driving whilst over the prescribed drink or drug limit other than if “Special Reasons” such as I have described are present. The reasons you describe amount to “Exceptional Hardship” that woofy has mentioned. This application is only available to avoid or reduce disqualification following a “totting up” ban and is cannot be used for bans resulting from single offences. Having said that, if her “Special Reasons” argument was indeed on the basis you mention, it is clearly ridiculous and would never succeed.
Back to the question. Magistrates have guidance when dealing with Excess Alcohol offences that relate the level of alcohol measured to the seriousness of the offence and hence the suggested sentence. There is currently no equivalent authorised guideline for driving over the drug limits. However some basic informal guidance has been published (to which Peter kindly provided a link). Some of the salient points:
“At present there is insufficient reliable data available from the Department for Transport upon which the Sentencing Council can devise a full guideline. For that reason, and given the number of requests for guidance that have been received, the Sentencing Council has devised the attached guidance to assist sentencers.”
“The limits for illegal drugs are set in line with a zero tolerance approach but ruling out accidental exposure. The limits for drugs that may be medically prescribed are set in line with a road safety risk-based approach, at levels above the normal concentrations found with therapeutic use. This is different from the approach taken when setting the limit for alcohol, where the limit was set at a level where the effect of the alcohol would be expected to have impaired a person’s driving ability. For these reasons it would be wrong to rely on the Driving with Excess Alcohol guideline when sentencing an offence under this legislation.”
” It is important to note that this guidance does not carry the same authority as a sentencing guideline, and sentencers are not obliged to follow it. However, it is hoped that the majority of sentencers will find it useful in assisting them to deal with these cases.
“The Sentencing Council will, in due course produce a guideline with the assistance of evidence and data gathered by the Department for Transport. Any new guideline will be made subject to public consultation before it is finalised.”
So, Hymie, you “…don’t know whether there is a correlation between the amount taken and a persons ability to control a motor vehicle, as with alcohol..” And neither does the Department for Transport. Hopefully the above extracts will help you understand why the court did not sentence in the same way as it might have for an offence of Excess Alcohol.
Latest Posts
Politics0 min ago
Spam & Scams1 min ago
News2 mins ago
News3 mins ago
ChatterBank4 mins ago
