Drink driving: proposed sentence increase


As regular readers will know, I run a drink driving solicitor firm and so have a particular interest in drink driving cases, so when I came across the Drink Driving (Repeat Offenders) Bill on the Parliament website I had to say something about it.

Rehman Chishti MP for Gillingham and Rainham has laid the Drink Driving (Repeat Offenders) Bill before Parliament under the 10-minute rule.  Because it is a private members bill there is little chance of it becoming law unless the government decides to allow it sufficient Parliamentary time to progress through Parliament.

Currently people convicted of drink driving can receive a maximum of six-months imprisonment no matter how many times they have been convicted in the past and no matter how high the level of alcohol in their system at the time they drove.

The Drink Driving (Repeat Offenders) Bill will give magistrates the power to send cases to the Crown Court where offenders can be sent to prison for up to two-years.  It’s unclear whether the Bill will convert drink driving into an either-way offence, which means that trials can be heard in the Crown Court as well as the magistrates’ court.  Normally, where an offence carries more than six-months imprisonment it follows that a trial can be heard in the Crown Court.  At the time of writing the full text of the Bill has yet to be published but the summary suggests that the Crown Court would have no power to hear trials but merely to sentence repeat offenders.  That would make it the only offence to be tried only in the magistrates' but with sentence imposed by the Crown Court, which makes me wonder at the quality of the drafting that has gone into the Bill, but time will tell on that front.


I’ve long been surprised by the very low sentences attracted by drink driving offences in comparison to vilification aimed at drink drivers by police and government so I’m not surprised to see a bill like this appear.

Comments

  1. DUI Attorney Tampa10 January 2014 at 06:52

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Andrew T22 January 2014 at 19:06

    Private Members' Bills (except "handouts" which are Government Bills in disguise) are propaganda, not legislation, and this is going nowhere. The Bill will probably not even be printed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Defence Brief7 March 2014 at 21:27

      Yep, I'm inclined to agree.

      I wrote to the MP responsible for this bill asking for a copy of it... never got a reply so can only assume that despite proposing the change, it's something he's not really that interested in.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Are items referred to in s.9’s as exhibits bound to be served?

  Background - CPS served a witness statement on me that exhibited two BWV clips that are potentially relevant to the Crown’s case and may have some relevance to the defence case insofar as they are likely to show the lighting and weather at the time events happened. Somebody has listed the clips as unused material rather than putting them in the exhibits folder that accompanies the served evidence. This raised an interesting (to me anyway) question about whether a party who exhibits an item in a statement is bound to serve it on their opponent. At court the judge took the view that the Crown were at liberty to classify items exhibited in s9s as unused material if they chose not to rely upon them in evidence. I took the view that if they are exhibited then they must be served along with the witness statement that exhibits the item and that the solution to a situation where the Crown say they are now unused is to edit the witness statement to remove the reference, by agreement with the
More gibberish >>

Is there twice as much violent crime in the UK versus the USA?

Image
The tweet from Charlie Kirk I came across a screenshot of a Twitter post while on Facebook this morning. The original post now has 11,000 retweets and 23,000 likes on Twitter. As you can see from the picture somebody called Charlie Kirk, who is a right-wing American commentator, claims that there are 933 violent crimes in the UK per 100,000 people. This is more than double the rate he claims for the USA where he says there are only 399 violent crimes per 100,000 people. The UK doesn’t feel that violent to me, so is it true? We’re all gonna die According to the FBI, in 2016 there were 1,248,185 violent crimes committed across the whole of the USA. That is an increase of 4.1% on the 2015 figure but still represented only 386.3 violent crimes per 100,000 people . So, Mr Kirk appears to be slightly overestimating the violent crime in the USA. I should say that I am using the 2016 figures as those are the latest available on the FBI website, so maybe he has slightly differe
More gibberish >>

Driving without insurance

Image
Insurance is a contract that remains in force until it expires or is cancelled As you may, or may not, know I specialise in motoring law and most of my work involves defending people accused of drink driving . With the drink driving often come other road traffic offences such as driving while disqualified and driving without insurance. It’s driving without insurance I want to talk about today because I think far too many police officers, solicitors, barristers and judges miss a key legal point when looking at these cases. I’ve received prosecution papers today for somebody accused of driving while disqualified and driving without insurance. The no insurance element is claim that the suspect did not tell the insurer about the disqualification. In his statement, the police officers says, “ [I] contacted [the insurer] who called me back informing me they would not consider the insurance policy valid as there were no convictions disclosed.” Looks like an open an
More gibberish >>