20 months ban for this ?

20 months ban is a bit steep IMO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaQPG2r2mNM

Seems a bit harsh. Neither party appeared to be unwilling on the otherwise empty street. Boys will be boys...

just naughty boys in the wrong place

Yeah, I saw this news and thought it was rather harsh! Perhaps they're making an example to discourage that sort of thing. Bit over the top though.

Not just a ban... "Ward was banned from driving for 20 months, ordered to complete 200 hours of unpaid work, fined £85 costs and told to pay an £85 victim surcharge."

Additionally the guy in the wheelchair was also punished...
​"MacPherson, of Link Way, Harrogate, was fined £154 and ordered to pay £30 costs and £30 victim surcharge"

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/national/15454167.Motorist_banned_for_20_months_for_towing_man_in_wheelchair/

This does seem excessively harsh, especially when every day I see utter ******s driving cars, vans or lorries whilst clearly also texting who, presumably, would receive a less harsh sentence?

The only reasons for such a harsh "punishment" that I can think of are
1. 3 magistrates that got out of bed the wrong side that morning
2. defendants couldn't afford an expensive barrister
3. possibly, they might have been a bit lairy with the police

but 20 months and 200 hours of unpaid work ...wtf :blink:

And who exactly is the victim to whom the 'victim surcharges' apply?

the CCTV operator, for having to watch such a horrific scene LOL

I think they have just been made an example of to discourage similar behavior.

hmmm I've had a look online, minimum is 1 year ban, but the following are also taken into consideration

• any previous driving convictions
• clean driving record
• lack of driving experience due to age
• whether the offender is injured due to their actions
• a timely plea of guilty
• shock or remorse in such cases of serious injury or death

He was only 20 years old , so 3rd on list would count against him, and he may have had previous driving convictions. Because the fine is so low, I suspect that he was unemployed, so they may have imposed unpaid work instead of a fine.

Dangerous Driving does seem a bit zealous, a very expensive barrister might have convinced CPS to drop it to Careless Driving. That's the problem with having no money, the saying is usually true .... "one law for the rich and another for the poor"

Ward pleaded guilty to the charge of dangerous driving, he might have received less if he argued the case.

Both had been in a pub before travelling (never good before the judge).

Security camera staff spent time compiling the footage to make it ready for DVLA involvment, police intervention, arrests, prosecution, court admin.

All communication on the night (Radiolink) between CCTV control and police.

Not forgetting, Harrogate Council outsourcing of the aging CCTV operation last month for the next three years , Got to cover as much of the estimated £170k.


http://england.unitedkingdom-tenders.co.uk/144545_Harrogate_Borough_Council_is_inviting_bids_from_suitably_qualified_and_experienced_contractors_2017_Harrogate

Channel Hopper said:

Ward pleaded guilty to the charge of dangerous driving, he might have received less if he argued the case.

Click to expand...

no, if you plead not-guilty and defend the case, the result is either you win and get off scot-free, or, you lose and get a heavier sentence.
By pleading guilty, you get a lighter sentence than by pleading not-guilty and losing.
He was clearly guilty, all he could do was employ a good solicitor to argue mitigation, or, employ a good barrister to get the original charge reduced (in this case, from Dangerous Driving, to Careless Driving).

Channel Hopper said:

Both had been in a pub before travelling (never good before the judge).

Click to expand...

why ?
he would have been breathalysed and didn't fail because he wan't charged with drink-driving (unless he was and that has been omitted, in which case the 20 months is fair).

Channel Hopper said:

Security camera staff spent time compiling the footage to make it ready for DVLA involvment, police intervention, arrests, prosecution, court admin.

All communication on the night (Radiolink) between CCTV control and police.

Not forgetting, Harrogate Council outsourcing of the aging CCTV operation last month for the next three years , Got to cover as much of the estimated £170k.

Click to expand...

actually, my quip about the CCTV operators was a quip, and just that.

The victim surcharge is applied to all cases seen by magistrates, and goes into a fund which goes towards compensating real victims of crime.

Skateboards , Skis ,sledges , armchair ..and a Canoe ...all been towed and ridden in behind various vehicles over the course of my teens early 20s ..The canoe was a terrible idea due to the barrel rolls they do when cornering . But **** like that is fun , only people getting hurt was us , we did it on quiet stretches out the way . ..infact one of the guys is now police haha

It was rather harsh just another flaw of the disgraceful law system of uk

Sent from my C6603 using Tapatalk