For the reasons I've explained in my last post, I don't think that driving without a licence is treated as seriously as it should be. However, there is a power available to us which I believe could be used to remedy the situation. Every traffic offence that is endorsable (i.e. we put points on the licence, or more accurately on the driving record at DVLA) carries with it the discretionary power to disqualify for a specified period. And for every offence where we have the discretion to disqualify for a fixed period, we can IN ADDITION further disqualify the person 'until a test is passed', if we find that there are safety issues involved. This disqualification, which takes effect when the fixed period is ended, means that the person is only entitled to drive under the provisions of a provisional driving licence (which he or she must first obtain), displaying L plates and accompanied by a qualified driver. Thus, if they want to resume their driving career after the fixed disqualification, they must do what the rest of us have had to do, learn how to drive and pass a test!
My view, and I really would like to hear the opinions of others, especially any magistrates or legal advisers reading this, is that ANY person who takes to the road in a car without first learning how to use it, threatens the safety of other road users, and therefore could - and should - be disqualified under this power. I have had this discussion with a number of legal advisers over the years, and I always get the reply that this is not what the legislation was intended for, and that there must be something about the driving as put before the court to suggest that on that occasion the driving was unsafe.
Most of these unlicensed drivers, however, are picked up through routine stops (or more recently, are spotted by vehicle registration recognition cameras), where the only offences are document offences. Evidence is then given via what is called a Section 9 statement read out in court, where the officer simply states that at a particualr time, on a particular date, in a particular place he/she 'had reason to cause the vehicle to stop' with no further detail save that no documents could be produced, nor had been produced in the 7 day period allowed.
I still think that we should be entitled to infer safety concerns from the fact that the person had not bothered to take a test. Opinions please!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I'm not a solicitor or a legal advisor, but if this is not what the legislation was intended for, then why do we have a licence system at all? Surely, the essential purpose of a licence is to provide official recognition of one's ability to drive within the law so as not to threaten the safety of others, or their property, through lack of skill or ignorance. Without a licence, no such assumption can be made. Ergo, if safety is not the consideration, there is no point.
I'm a fellow magistrate (albeit relatively new) but I'm with the legal advisors on this one. A licence offence is solely one of driving without an appropriate licence. If someone had been observed driving dangerously or carelessly it is reasonable to suppose that appropriate additional charges would have been brought. I'm sure you've seen many defendants facing multiple charges; careless driving, no tax, no insurance, no MOT is quite a popular set where I am - which suggests to me that where safety is a concern the appropriate additional charge is already brought.
I'll agree that very often an unlicenced driver may be a poor driver. There will almost certainly be other issues of importance too, lack of insurance being the obvious one. But, in my view, a sentence for a licence offence alone which reflected an unsupported assumption about the quality of driving would probably be overturned on appeal.
Whether the current penalties for driving without a licence are appropriate may be a debate worth having. But trying to jack up the penalty through the back door by making assumptions about safety doesn't seem to be the right way to go about it.
"A licence offence is solely one of driving without an appropriate licence"
Surely this cannot be right? Insurance certificates indicate that the insurance only applies when the driver holds a valid licence. Therefore, no licence = no insurance.
Post a Comment