Government plans to roll out traffic courts to deal with low-level driver offences across England and Wales

drfabulous0 wrote:

Quote:

Justice Minister Damian Green said: “The safety of the general public is paramount, and we take road safety very seriously, which is why we have recently increased the sentence for causing serious injury by dangerous driving to 5 years imprisonment.

Rubbish, the sentence is still nothing.

and what would you need to actually get a 5 year, in reality 2.5Year sentence?

tourdelound wrote:

.....So all of the above offences are treated as low level offences, all of which, could, with the possible exception of "Noise offences", be held responsible death or serious injury
of innocent third parties.

Goes to show, what a shambles so called "British Justice" is.

"Ministers say move will free up magistrate's courts to deal with more serious crimes 'that affect community and victims'"

All of the above offences "affect community and victims".

What chance have we got?

They are not regarded as "low level" for any other reason than that they are not the most serious of offences such as causing death by dangerous driving, dangerous driving, drink driving, failure to provide etc.

You can make a case that every offence carries the potential for lethality and injury so every offence is serious. The trouble with that philosophy is that if everything is serious or treated as such then nothing is more serious than anything else.

The point about the traffic courts is to process the routine offences quickly and get them out of a more expensive forum of a general magistrates court. Traffic courts being specialised in nature means that the judiciary involved will be far more au fait with the law.

One of the reasons I think that traffic offences have been treated very leniently is the fact that they are heard in a general court. So having just listed to cases of perhaps common assault, fraud, theft etc you then have the same magistrate hearing an sp30 offence or such like. ie the routine traffic offences appear trivial compared with some of the other stuff they deal with. Traffic courts will only hear traffic offences and therefore traffic offences will be more, rather than less likely, to be given their due weight. That's good for cyclists, pedestrians and dare I say it sensible drivers.

oozaveared wrote:

The point about the traffic courts is to process the routine offences quickly and get them out of a more expensive forum of a general magistrates court. Traffic courts being specialised in nature means that the judiciary involved will be far more au fait with the law.

I hope your right, my question is, if these are being processed in bulk, what if the defendant argues it isn't fair, that s/he should have right to defend themselves? what is the appeal process etc.

mrmo wrote:

oozaveared wrote:

The point about the traffic courts is to process the routine offences quickly and get them out of a more expensive forum of a general magistrates court. Traffic courts being specialised in nature means that the judiciary involved will be far more au fait with the law.

I hope your right, my question is, if these are being processed in bulk, what if the defendant argues it isn't fair, that s/he should have right to defend themselves? what is the appeal process etc.

Just because it's heard in a traffic court doesn't mean you loose your rights. You'll still be able, as now, to plead guilty/not guilty and have your case heard.

And to add to previous comments
-if death/injury results from one of this list of low level offences then clearly the CPS would have the option to charge a more serious offence.
-in relation to a 5 year sentences for dangerous driving causing injury- this is a longer sentence than GBH (without intent)
(see http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/Assault_definitive_guidel... )

If you want the specifics in relation to death by dangerous driving they are here; http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/web_causing_death_by_driv...

mrmo wrote:

oozaveared wrote:

The point about the traffic courts is to process the routine offences quickly and get them out of a more expensive forum of a general magistrates court. Traffic courts being specialised in nature means that the judiciary involved will be far more au fait with the law.

I hope your right, my question is, if these are being processed in bulk, what if the defendant argues it isn't fair, that s/he should have right to defend themselves? what is the appeal process etc.

They are proper courts so the fairness issue doesn't apply they will always have the right to defend themselves. Most of the time traffic offences don't really have a "defence". You either were or you weren't doing what is alleged and the police have the evidence to prove you were that's why you were summonsed. In most cases going to court is to plead guilty but offer some sort of mitigation in the hope of a reduced fine or to avoid a ban or other sentence.

The traffic courts will be hearing cases where the driver hasn't simply accepted a fixed penalty and wants their day in court.

I had a colleague once that was caught speeding and already had 9 points. If he accepted the FPN that would have resulted in 3 more points and have triggered a minimum 6 month ban. He went to court to plead that six of the 9 points he already had were a month or so from being removed. and that the other three were for an sp30 on a dual carriageway and were also pretty old. He pleaded that he needed his car for his job. So they gave him 2 points and the maximum fine, plus maximum costs and ordered he attend a speed awareness course at his own expense. (I think they should have banned him btw) but that's an illustration of what goes on in traffic cases that are not dealt with by FPN.