Skip to main content

Drink driving sentencing

I spoke to a chap today who has been accused of a drink driving offence.  He denies it, but that's not really important because this post isn't about him or his case.

Like many people I meet dealing with drink driving offences at The London Drink Driving Solicitor this chap faces losing his driving licence and with it his job and so not being able to afford his mortgage.  Understandably, he's very worried about feeding his family if he loses his job and cannot pay the bills.

Now, many people take the attitude that he has brought the punishment on himself and I can understand why people would take this view.  But, is taking people out of work and making them and their families reliant on the state for their accommodation and food really the best way for us to deal with this offence?

It's just a suggestion, but why not change the drink driving law so that it no longer carries an obligatory driving ban but instead has a sentencing guideline that starts with everybody being banned from driving, but allows the court to chose not to disqualify where the magistrates believes that the likelihood of further offences is low and they consider that the offender could be better punished with another sentence, such as unpaid work.  The court could also impose a probationary period on the offender during which any driving offence (or any one of a list of offences that the Secretary of State deems serious enough) would result in an immediate driving ban.

The chap today was hopeful that he could undertake 800-hours of unpaid work in the community and pay a significant fine to avoid the driving ban and why not if there's little chance of further offences?  He can't, of course, because a) the law requires that he is banned if convicted; and b) the maximum unpaid work hours is currently 300.

There are clearly some people who are a menace to others and who should not be allowed near a car; however, many of the people I meet are middle-aged, working and have never been in trouble before.  Many of these people can safely be allowed to continue driving.


  1. When I visited a Long Island NY court a few years ago I was invited to sit up with the Judge. They had a system of conditional bans, when you could only drive between your home and your workplace, with a low margin of divergence allowed. Be found outside the limit and jail beckons.
    This makes sense in suburban USA where there is very sparse public transport, and keeping people in work is important.
    A good idea but it depends on enforcement that might not be practical in the cash-strapped UK where traffic police are a rarity.

    1. I take your point about enforcement but you can equally say that about policing the disqualification.

    2. Perhaps have tag the offender and link it with a device in the car that activates the tag when driven and tracks with a GPS receiver. The data can be downloaded daily to demostrate that he/she has been sticking to the rules, and all costs to be borne by the wearer as part of not accepting an immediate ban.

      If the tag can't be afforded, or the wearer doesn't want to be watched by Big Brother, surrender the driving licence. Failure to stick within a defined route, or being found driving a car without a logger would trigger the full penalty.

      Not sure how you deal with the self-employed who don't have a regular place of work, though.

  2. Who's going to decide if a convicted drink-driver is a menace or not? I'm sure every solicitor will tell the magistrate his/her client is one of those that needs another chance.

    1. The court based on the evidence before them and with the assistance of probation, the defence and the prosecution as necessary.

      It's not like courts don't decide this sort of thing every day when they weigh up whether to imprison someone or give them community service etc. Crown Courts decide whether somebody is a dangerous offender for sentencing and Mags decide whether youths offences are grave offences so I see no reason why they should not be able to cope with this decision.

      In any event, I've suggested a sentencing guideline that would put the starting point at a disqualification meaning the driver would have to convince the court to go below that.

    2. Also worth saying that we can currently avoid a ban if there is a special reason and I spend a reasonable amount of time telling people to forget their "special reason" as what they have is anything but special (and in some cases not even a reason).

  3. As a non-driver I don't really have a horse in this race but driving bans with the aforementioned loss of livelihood/house etc seem disproportionate to me compared to the sentences given for other relatively lowly offences.

  4. This is an offence which people choose to commit. And forty-odd years after the breathalyser was introduced everyone on the road knows the penalty.

    I was once in the Chair when I had to ban an American, living and working here, for sixteen months. He said "I get drive-to-work privileges, right?"

    "No. You are disqualified from all driving."

    And he hit the roof telling us how important his work was and did we realise what we were doing.

    Now in fact he held a senior and responsible post. And he lived twenty minutes form his work on foot with a good bus-route.

    As Lord Goddard said: My withers were unwrung.

    1. It's a fair point and not one that I can take issue with aside from saying that simply because everybody knows the sentence doesn't mean the sentence is the right one in all circumstances.

      I understand that in some US states drivers can be banned except for the drive to and from work, which I believe they call a Hardship License - not an entirely bad idea.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ched Evans

Before I begin, I will say that at around 4,500 words this is probably the longest blog I’ve ever posted but I think it’s all necessary to set the scene for this case and explain the background that has been largely ignored or airbrushed in the press. Despite its length, I have not attempted to include every little detail of either fact or law but have done my best to provide a balanced picture of the Ched Evans case, what happened and why the courts reached the decisions they did. There has been so much written about the Ched Evans case over the past weekend, much of it based on a very shaky grasp of the facts and law, that I decided I would read up about the case and weigh in (hopefully on a slightly firmer footing than most of the articles I’ve read so far).

Broadly speaking there seem to be three groups who have opinions on the case:
1.Sexual violence groups (including people describing themselves as “radical feminists”) who appear to take the view that the case is awful, the Court o…

How do the police decide whether to charge a suspect?

A question I’m often asked by clients (and in a roundabout way by people arriving at this blog using searches that ask the question in a variety of ways), is “how do the police decide whether to charge or take no further action (NFA)?”
What are the options?
Let’s have a quick think about what options are available to the police at the end of an investigation.
First, they can charge or report you for summons to attend court.  Charging means that you are given police bail and are required to attend court in person.  A summons is an order from the court for you to attend or for you to send a solicitor on your behalf.  In many cases where a person is summonsed, the court will allow you the option of entering a plea by post.
Second, you may be given a caution.  These can be a simple caution, which on the face of it is a warning not to be naughty in future, or it can be a conditional caution.  Conditions could include a requirement to pay for the cost of damage or compensation, etc.  Either…

Bid to prevent defendants knowing who accuses them of a crime

When I read The Trial by Kafka and Nineteen Eighty-Four by Orwell, I took them as warnings of how a bad justice system wrecks lives of those caught up in it. Sadly, some Members of Parliament and the House of Lords seem to view the books more as a guide to how they would like our Criminal Justice System to run. Today, I read of plans to hide the names of accusers and witnesses from defendants in a large number of cases. Victims of sexual offences, such as rape, have had the right to lifelong anonymity for many years now. This means that it is a criminal offence to publish information that will lead to a complainant being identified. A Bill currently being considered by Parliament would extend that anonymity to bar defendants and their lawyers knowing the name of the person accusing them. This would apply not only in sexual offences, as has been reported in the press, but also in violent offences.
The anonymity currently offered to victims of sexual offences is not total, the complainant…