Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

B1096 – Drink Driving Penalties Bill 2017 (Second Reading) Watch

    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    So if a drunk person happens to be asleep in their car which is in a car park, they could get fined?
    Theoretically yes - but that's the current law, and that's why people have to be charged, and go to court... In this example, it's incredibly unlikely that they'd actually be prosecuted for being in charge of the vehicle...
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    It doesn't change whether or not someone is prosecuted, and so if someone is deemed to not be doing these offences and so it's not like the penalties are going to be used in all cases of this anyway.
    It isn't the role of the police to decide whether or not someone's prosecution is just, and you shouldn't rely on that.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    It isn't the role of the police to decide whether or not someone's prosecution is just, and you shouldn't rely on that.
    No, that's the role of the court... and we should rely on that. Just because someone is charged, doesn't mean they are prosecuted. Also, I'll say again: this Bill doesn't change whether someone is charged and prosecuted, and people do do these things and are not prosecuted when it's clear they weren't attempting to do these things...
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    No, that's the role of the court... and we should rely on that. Just because someone is charged, doesn't mean they are prosecuted. Also, I'll say again: this Bill doesn't change whether someone is charged and prosecuted, and people do do these things and are not prosecuted when it's clear they weren't attempting to do these things...
    That's the role of the court as part of sentencing. Minimum sentences remove the ability of the court to do that. The court doesn't have jurisdiction to find a person not guilty because they don't believe it's just. They do have discretion in sentencing, which is what you're trying to remove.

    You're saying it again but it doesn't make it a good argument. It's not the police's role to decide whether or not people who've committed an offence should, for fairness' sake rather than any legal reason, be let off.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    Not if the person isn't charged or prosecuted for driving or attempting to drive whilst unfit - but yes if they are, then they will have to pay £2,500 (been reduced, see Bill). Also, there is no minimum fine for being in charge of.
    Unless I'm still half-asleep it looks like you've put that change in the notes but the bill still says £5,000?

    In any case, there shouldn't be a mandatory minimum. I get that it's a serious offence and I largely agree with the rest of the bill, but the judiciary should have discretion here. For some people, particularly the unemployed, fines of that magnitude will have such a drastic impact on their quality of life that they'll do more harm than good when it comes to reducing overall offending. It's also important to note that this offence is particularly likely to lose someone their job, being seen as serious whilst also meaning they can no longer drive, increasing the chances of them being in severe poverty while they're out of work and waiting to claim welfare: such fines with no flexibility would worsen that situation beyond a point that's reasonable as punishment.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    That's the role of the court as part of sentencing. Minimum sentences remove the ability of the court to do that. The court doesn't have jurisdiction to find a person not guilty because they don't believe it's just. They do have discretion in sentencing, which is what you're trying to remove.

    You're saying it again but it doesn't make it a good argument. It's not the police's role to decide whether or not people who've committed an offence should, for fairness' sake rather than any legal reason, be let off.
    Not everyone that goes to court HAS to be prosecuted... and if you're not prosecuted, there's then no punishment...

    But that's the point... it's the courts job, and if someone has actually broken the law, then they should go to court and if found guilty, be punished subject to the minimum penalties. If the court doesn't believe they've broken the law, then they don't get punished.

    Also, is this in particular with being in charge of or attempting/driving? Because I can slightly see where you're coming from with being in charge of if that's what you're referring to in particular?
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Aye, as before.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    Not everyone that goes to court HAS to be prosecuted... and if you're not prosecuted, there's then no punishment...
    I don't understand what you mean. If you go to court for a purported criminal offence, you're being prosecuted.

    But that's the point... it's the courts job, and if someone has actually broken the law, then they should go to court and if found guilty, be punished subject to the minimum penalties. If the court doesn't believe they've broken the law, then they don't get punished.

    Also, is this in particular with being in charge of or attempting/driving? Because I can slightly see where you're coming from with being in charge of if that's what you're referring to in particular?
    Someone has broken the law if, for instance, they were unaware they were over the limit (e.g. through having a drink spiked), or if they had a genuine emergency. The court would have to find those people guilty - and, on your proposal, impose your minimum sentence.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Unless I'm still half-asleep it looks like you've put that change in the notes but the bill still says £5,000?

    In any case, there shouldn't be a mandatory minimum. I get that it's a serious offence and I largely agree with the rest of the bill, but the judiciary should have discretion here. For some people, particularly the unemployed, fines of that magnitude will have such a drastic impact on their quality of life that they'll do more harm than good when it comes to reducing overall offending. It's also important to note that this offence is particularly likely to lose someone their job, being seen as serious whilst also meaning they can no longer drive, increasing the chances of them being in severe poverty while they're out of work and waiting to claim welfare: such fines with no flexibility would worsen that situation beyond a point that's reasonable as punishment.
    :rofl: Thanks, yes, it is meant to be £2,500 in the Bill... (Saracen's Fez would you mind changing that?)

    I would agree that if they have a job that requires driving then obviously, but not sure about the statistics on it for anyone who doesn't have a driving job... and the whole point is, is that this is meant to be a deterrent. If someone is drunk and kills someone, you can't go someone's parent and say, sorry that someone killed your son whilst drink driving, but hey, there's no real reason they won't do it again because we're not really punishing them so that they can still have a great life.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I don't understand what you mean. If you go to court for a purported criminal offence, you're being prosecuted.
    Well, I was saying that in reference to thinking you were talking about the being in charge section, where even someone has to go to court because the police believe they were in charge, and the person can prove they weren't, then they won't be prosecuted


    Someone has broken the law if, for instance, they were unaware they were over the limit (e.g. through having a drink spiked), or if they had a genuine emergency. The court would have to find those people guilty - and, on your proposal, impose your minimum sentence.
    Yes, but in that case, I think the police should then not charge the person given the investigation... The current law already required a minimum 1 year ban if caught attempting to/driving whilst unfit, so they must have provisions for these cases, otherwise as it stands someone who's been spiked would lose their license for a year.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    :rofl: Thanks, yes, it is meant to be £2,500 in the Bill... (Saracen's Fez would you mind changing that?)

    I would agree that if they have a job that requires driving then obviously, but not sure about the statistics on it for anyone who doesn't have a driving job... and the whole point is, is that this is meant to be a deterrent. If someone is drunk and kills someone, you can't go someone's parent and say, sorry that someone killed your son whilst drink driving, but hey, there's no real reason they won't do it again because we're not really punishing them so that they can still have a great life.
    You're not arguing for minimum sentences here, you're arguing for judicial discretion in sentencing. The main difficulty with that is that the relevant offences are mostly summary offences, and magistrates aren't legal experts in the same way as Crown Court judges.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    :rofl: Thanks, yes, it is meant to be £2,500 in the Bill... (Saracen's Fez would you mind changing that?)

    I would agree that if they have a job that requires driving then obviously, but not sure about the statistics on it for anyone who doesn't have a driving job... and the whole point is, is that this is meant to be a deterrent. If someone is drunk and kills someone, you can't go someone's parent and say, sorry that someone killed your son whilst drink driving, but hey, there's no real reason they won't do it again because we're not really punishing them so that they can still have a great life.
    I entirely agree and in 95% of cases if not more I'm perfectly happy with those fines. It's just a matter of letting judges show common sense on the exceptions, not so someone isn't punished but so that e.g. they don't see their children go hungry. If you simply increased the sentencing guidelines significantly rather than put in a hard minimum you'd have my full support
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    Not if the person isn't charged or prosecuted for driving or attempting to drive whilst unfit - but yes if they are, then they will have to pay £2,500 (been reduced, see Bill). Also, there is no minimum fine for being in charge of.
    Obviously, a person not charged, or a person that is innocent will not be fined. That is a given, and hardly a valuable subject of debate.

    I am questioning the sanity of a minimum fine of such mind-boggling proportions for people who will, in a large proportion of cases be completely unable to pay them

    Taking just the young, between 2010 and 2014, about a third of drink drivers in accidents were aged under 25, a huge proportion of which would not have had £2,500 in the world, and little disposable income to save it from.

    This pretend legislation is little different from the real legislation except for the mandatory minimum fine. Clearly real life politicians, despite their reputation, have more sense than pretend ones.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    I entirely agree and in 95% of cases if not more I'm perfectly happy with those fines. It's just a matter of letting judges show common sense on the exceptions, not so someone isn't punished but so that e.g. they don't see their children go hungry. If you simply increased the sentencing guidelines significantly rather than put in a hard minimum you'd have my full support
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Obviously, a person not charged, or a person that is innocent will not be fined. That is a given, and hardly a valuable subject of debate.

    I am questioning the sanity of a minimum fine of such mind-boggling proportions for people who will, in a large proportion of cases be completely unable to pay them

    Taking just the young, between 2010 and 2014, about a third of drink drivers in accidents were aged under 25, a huge proportion of which would not have had £2,500 in the world, and little disposable income to save it from.

    This pretend legislation is little different from the real legislation except for the mandatory minimum fine. Clearly real life politicians, despite their reputation, have more sense than pretend ones.
    But the thing is, if the fine is insignificant then why are people going to say no, I won't drink drive... Like, a large fine would motivate me a lot more than having my license taken away, because I can't pay it..

    (On a side note, I personally think that any parent that drink drives should have their children taken away from them)
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    Not everyone that goes to court HAS to be prosecuted... and if you're not prosecuted, there's then no punishment...
    You don't seem to understand the legal system. By definition, everybody who goes to court over a criminal matter has been prosecuted. The courts don't see people who have not been prosecuted.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    You don't seem to understand the legal system. By definition, everybody who goes to court over a criminal matter has been prosecuted. The courts don't see people who have not been prosecuted.
    Fine, but then in that case yes, it should be up to the police to decide whether there is substantial reason for someone to be charged, just like they would decide whether to charge someone for killing someone if it was to save someone's life.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    But the thing is, if the fine is insignificant then why are people going to say no, I won't drink drive... Like, a large fine would motivate me a lot more than having my license taken away, because I can't pay it..

    (On a side note, I personally think that any parent that drink drives should have their children taken away from them)
    Is your real name Draco? Removing children from parents? Mandatory high minimum fines for people with no money?

    You'll have the youth of this country in gaol, the child care services overwhelmed, and bring up a whole generation of scarred parentless children.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Is your real name Draco? Removing children from parents? Mandatory high minimum fines for people with no money?

    You'll have the youth of this country in gaol, the child care services overwhelmed, and bring up a whole generation of scarred parentless children.
    You got it in one

    Obviously it's not great for the childcare system, but I do think that if a parent is irresponsible enough to go out drinking and drive whilst drunk, then who knows what they'd do at home... I should say that I'd only really support it for parents well over the limit, and clearly ****ed off their head... I think someone having an extra pint or two at the pub and then driving probably isn't going to be a threat to their children, but who knows :rofl:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    Fine, but then in that case yes, it should be up to the police to decide whether there is substantial reason for someone to be charged, just like they would decide whether to charge someone for killing someone if it was to save someone's life.
    No. More evidence of not understanding what you are meddling in. The CPS decides who is prosecuted, and they do it on the basis, mainly, of the chances of conviction. In the case of drink driving the blood alcohol figures are pretty cast iron evidence so virtually all cases go to court.

    Killing in defence of life is a defence to murder, so that accused person shouldn't be convicted even if they go to court.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    No. More evidence of not understanding what you are meddling in. The CPS decides who is prosecuted, and they do it on the basis, mainly, of the chances of conviction. In the case of drink driving the blood alcohol figures are pretty cast iron evidence so virtually all cases go to court.

    Killing in defence of life is a defence to murder, so that accused person shouldn't be convicted even if they go to court.
    But the laws at the moment are that if you're caught driving/attempting to drive a vehicle, you're banned for a minimum one year so there must be provisions if it's deemed that someone drove with good reason whilst drunk, allowing for them not to be banned for a year, which would extend to the fine.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 29, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.