12:49:05 by TheJusticeofthePeace
When I were a lad and you couldn`t go down the mines until you were twelve years old …..when you could take a knife into the street and give it to a grimy man treadling a machine that resembled your grandma`s sowing machine and he would sharpen it for sixpence…..when every few months the totter would stop in the street, give his horse a bag of hay and ring a bell for any old clothes or what have you for which he paid a few pence or a shilling or two if you were a haggler. These days epitomised in the series Steptoe and Son arguably the best comedy characters ever on T.V. came to an end about twenty years ago even in Shepherds Bush.
Talk of a totter nowadays and it means one thing and one thing only…….somebody disqualified from driving for collecting 12 penalty points within a specified period. A moot point is the act by a court of sentencing in absence, i.e. when for whatever reason the defendant is not in court to hear the pronouncement. Where I sit and in line with my personal preferences we do not do this on a matter of issuing a driving ban. If the summons to appear is disregarded a warrant is issued. However that is not mandatory practice.
A couple of weeks ago we had before us Kevin, mid twenties, who would probably describe the term “good night” as downing ten pints and finding his own way home. He was unrepresented and appeared before us on a charge of driving whilst disqualified and consequently also charged with driving with no insurance. All insurers have clauses in their policies which render the policy null and void if the driver is not qualified to drive. When asked to plead his reply was “Not Guilty”. When he was asked on what grounds he was so pleading he told us he didn`t know he was disqualified and after gathering what wits he possessed he produced a letter from the court involved enquiring about the non payment of £200+ in fines and costs for the original offences for which he was disqualified some four months previously. It was explained to him that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it. Unsurprisingly he changed his plea to Guilty when he was told the benefits of avoiding a trial at which he was unlikely to be acquitted.
Because Kevin declared he was on Benefits we were obliged to consider his income as £100 per week and with his plea he was fined a week`s “wages” i.e. £100 plus costs and a lesser amount for the no insurance. He had a further disqualification period of six months imposed.
For various reasons there was no sympathy on the bench for Kevin and his assertion that he was unaware because he had not received intimation of the hearing at which he was disqualified. But it is not difficult to imagine a scenario where such sympathy might exist. Courts which do not follow our practice should consider doing so. Justice must not only be done it must be seen to be done and that in my opinion includes ceasing the procedure of disqualifying in absence unless under the most extreme of situations where the alternative is not practicable or puts the public at risk.
Talk of a totter nowadays and it means one thing and one thing only…….somebody disqualified from driving for collecting 12 penalty points within a specified period. A moot point is the act by a court of sentencing in absence, i.e. when for whatever reason the defendant is not in court to hear the pronouncement. Where I sit and in line with my personal preferences we do not do this on a matter of issuing a driving ban. If the summons to appear is disregarded a warrant is issued. However that is not mandatory practice.
A couple of weeks ago we had before us Kevin, mid twenties, who would probably describe the term “good night” as downing ten pints and finding his own way home. He was unrepresented and appeared before us on a charge of driving whilst disqualified and consequently also charged with driving with no insurance. All insurers have clauses in their policies which render the policy null and void if the driver is not qualified to drive. When asked to plead his reply was “Not Guilty”. When he was asked on what grounds he was so pleading he told us he didn`t know he was disqualified and after gathering what wits he possessed he produced a letter from the court involved enquiring about the non payment of £200+ in fines and costs for the original offences for which he was disqualified some four months previously. It was explained to him that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it. Unsurprisingly he changed his plea to Guilty when he was told the benefits of avoiding a trial at which he was unlikely to be acquitted.
Because Kevin declared he was on Benefits we were obliged to consider his income as £100 per week and with his plea he was fined a week`s “wages” i.e. £100 plus costs and a lesser amount for the no insurance. He had a further disqualification period of six months imposed.
For various reasons there was no sympathy on the bench for Kevin and his assertion that he was unaware because he had not received intimation of the hearing at which he was disqualified. But it is not difficult to imagine a scenario where such sympathy might exist. Courts which do not follow our practice should consider doing so. Justice must not only be done it must be seen to be done and that in my opinion includes ceasing the procedure of disqualifying in absence unless under the most extreme of situations where the alternative is not practicable or puts the public at risk.
No comments:
Post a Comment