Quizzes & Puzzles48 mins ago
Harriet Harman
How did she get away with not being charged for using her mobile phone ?
All answers gratefully received !!
FBG40
All answers gratefully received !!
FBG40
Answers
1 to 16 of 16
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by fbg40. 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.
she was charged with careless driving - I think this is the more serious charge. As far as I know you usually only get charged with one offence for one incident. It was to do with parking rather than driving on the road, so - arguably - nobody was at risk. Nonetheless, she was pretty lucky, wasn't she?
It was to do with parking rather than driving on the road, so - arguably - nobody was at risk.
so how have people been prosecuted for using a mobile whilst parked at the kerb with their engine running and using thier mobile, it dosent make sense, i thought it was not being in total control of a motor vehical that would have been the charge.
Dave.
so how have people been prosecuted for using a mobile whilst parked at the kerb with their engine running and using thier mobile, it dosent make sense, i thought it was not being in total control of a motor vehical that would have been the charge.
Dave.
I'm guessing they can't get you for careless driving while you're parked, engine running or not, so they do you for using your mobile (though beats me how they get away with it); if you're moving they'll go for the more serious charge. I'm open to correction by anyone whose knowledge of the law is more recent than mine, though.
-- answer removed --
Harriet Harman had 6 pts already on her licence - the penalty scale for driving without due care and attention is between 3-9 pts, if she had been "done" for the mobile phone as well that would have been a minimum of 3pts so she would have received a ban. Its very interesting don't you think? that she only got 3 pts taking her total to 9.... but then as previous posters have pointed out she is bl**dy politician!!!
The sentence Ms Harman received for Careless Driving was absolutely in accordance with Magistrates’ sentencing guidelines.
The CPS decided to drop the charge of driving whilst using a mobile phone and chose instead to charge the more serious offence. As jno suggests, it would be unusual for two offences to be charged which arise from one incident or course of action. For example, a speeding driver who had driven dangerously would not normally be charged with both dangerous driving and speeding; someone committing grievous bodily harm would not be charged with that and common assault. However, even if she had been charged with both offences she would not have received any additional points. When two or more motoring offences are committed which result from a single incident, although a fine may be imposed for each, points are awarded only for the most serious.
I hold no brief for Ms Harman but I believe she has been treated in much the same way as any other motorist would have been in similar circumstances – which is exactly as it should be.
It seems she now has nine active points on her licence (her record in the Guardian report is incorrect). Any further offence which attracts points which she may commit before September 2010 (three years after the oldest points) will make her liable for a minimum six month ban under “totting up”. She could, though, argue that exceptional hardship may result from such a ban.
The CPS decided to drop the charge of driving whilst using a mobile phone and chose instead to charge the more serious offence. As jno suggests, it would be unusual for two offences to be charged which arise from one incident or course of action. For example, a speeding driver who had driven dangerously would not normally be charged with both dangerous driving and speeding; someone committing grievous bodily harm would not be charged with that and common assault. However, even if she had been charged with both offences she would not have received any additional points. When two or more motoring offences are committed which result from a single incident, although a fine may be imposed for each, points are awarded only for the most serious.
I hold no brief for Ms Harman but I believe she has been treated in much the same way as any other motorist would have been in similar circumstances – which is exactly as it should be.
It seems she now has nine active points on her licence (her record in the Guardian report is incorrect). Any further offence which attracts points which she may commit before September 2010 (three years after the oldest points) will make her liable for a minimum six month ban under “totting up”. She could, though, argue that exceptional hardship may result from such a ban.
You are wrong she was charged with driving without due care and attention reckless driving is more serious see: http://www.direct.gov...ifications/DG_4022550
It is the fact she was let off using a mobile which would have resulted in 3 pts thus taking her up to 12 pts thus resulting in a ban!
It is the fact she was let off using a mobile which would have resulted in 3 pts thus taking her up to 12 pts thus resulting in a ban!
The options for the CPS were Careless Driving (driving without due care and attention) and/or using a mobile phone whilst driving. I don't believe reckless driving (which is now termed Dangerous Driving and is indeed more serious) was ever a consideration. They made their charging decision along the principle I explained (that is, concentrating on the most serious offence) and there was never a reasonable likliehood that she would have been charged with both offences .
Furthermore, as I pointed out, even if she had, she would not have received penalty points for both offences.
So I don't really know where you are coming from, Crazychikx.
Furthermore, as I pointed out, even if she had, she would not have received penalty points for both offences.
So I don't really know where you are coming from, Crazychikx.
New Judge sorry I misread your post, you are quite correct there was no mention of reckless driving.... however I still maintain that driving without due care and attention (carelessdriving) carries 3-9 points penality and I am pretty certain if it had been a normal member of public on the phone reversing into a parked car whilst on the phone... (allegedly) they would have got more than 3 pts.... but hey.... you can cynical
To help you overcome your cynicism, here’s an extract from the Magistrates’ Sentencing Guidelines on Careless Driving:
Momentary lapse of concentration or misjudgement at low speed.........3 - 4 points
Loss of control due to speed, mishandling or insufficient attention to road conditions, or carelessly turning right across on-coming traffic.........5 – 6 points
(There is a further category covering high speed incidents and those bordering on Dangerous Driving where the suggestion is 7 – 9 points or a disqualification).
The full guidelines are available here (page 117):
http://www.sentencing...e_1_%202%20_3_web.pdf
You will see that the offence can be aggravated by “carrying out other tasks whilst driving” but I would suggest Ms Harman’s incident falls at the very lowest end of Careless Driving and so 3 points was appropriate in all the circumstances, and certainly no more than four in any event, Crazychickx.
It often seems that privileged people are treated more leniently by the courts, but in this case I believe the CPS charged appropriately and the magistrates were spot on with their sentence.
Momentary lapse of concentration or misjudgement at low speed.........3 - 4 points
Loss of control due to speed, mishandling or insufficient attention to road conditions, or carelessly turning right across on-coming traffic.........5 – 6 points
(There is a further category covering high speed incidents and those bordering on Dangerous Driving where the suggestion is 7 – 9 points or a disqualification).
The full guidelines are available here (page 117):
http://www.sentencing...e_1_%202%20_3_web.pdf
You will see that the offence can be aggravated by “carrying out other tasks whilst driving” but I would suggest Ms Harman’s incident falls at the very lowest end of Careless Driving and so 3 points was appropriate in all the circumstances, and certainly no more than four in any event, Crazychickx.
It often seems that privileged people are treated more leniently by the courts, but in this case I believe the CPS charged appropriately and the magistrates were spot on with their sentence.
Sorrry New Judge I posted before reading your link, it would be interesting to see her endorsement CD10 or CD 20 anyway I still think she was treated too lienently I know if it is me or another member of Joe Public we would have got done for both mobile use and CD10 or CD20.
Please accept my humble apologies for not seeing your link.
Please accept my humble apologies for not seeing your link.
Apology accepted, crazy.
Regardless of the conviction codes you will see from the sentencing guidelines that that there are now only two “bad driving” offences – Careless Driving and Dangerous Driving. It was Careless Driving with which Ms Harman was charged and convicted.
I cannot really say much more about the fairness (or otherwise) of the sentence imposed.
Regardless of the conviction codes you will see from the sentencing guidelines that that there are now only two “bad driving” offences – Careless Driving and Dangerous Driving. It was Careless Driving with which Ms Harman was charged and convicted.
I cannot really say much more about the fairness (or otherwise) of the sentence imposed.
1 to 16 of 16
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles117 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles120 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles125 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles136 mins ago
Listener No. 4844 S And T By Aedites
Crosswords144 mins ago
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|