http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-16414691
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News
Caithness drink-driver opposes losing £23,000 Audi
(15 posts)-
Posted 13 years ago #
-
Yes, I saw this last night and considered posting it here. What a cheek! If he didn't want to lose his car, he should not have got drunk before crashing into someone else!
It will be interesting to watch this case, to see if the "I've got an expensive car you can't take it away" has the same effect as "I've got a well paid job you can't ban me from driving" gambit...
Posted 13 years ago # -
I like the defence of "I wasn't that drunk in the car your honour, but when I crashed and fled the scene, I went home and drunk some more which interfered with my reading"
Posted 13 years ago # -
Sheriff Andrew Berry has called for a background report and said he also wanted to examine the grounds that had to be established before a vehicle was forfeited.
Is that Sheriff-speak for "I'm trying to find a way to let you off the hook?" Or is it "I have no idea how to counter this ingenious defence, I need to think about it", or maybe "I'm going to get you, I just need back up as I wasn't expecting a bolshie lawyer!"
Posted 13 years ago # -
take the car
make it compulsory that the car is taken for every convicted drunk driverPosted 13 years ago # -
Any one of the three crowriver. But basically, given the nature of the proposed punishment, I think it's right to say that a background report must be obtained to ensure that the punishment wouldn't be disproportionate (e.g. would taking the car mean that he loses his job and without a job means he can't pay his mortgage meaning he loses his house etc etc etc).
It might be that this is also part of the defence and the media is only focussing on the 'value of the car' as being disproportionate for the story. If that's the case then how about he loses his car but gets 5 grand back to buy a wee runaround? Or once he gets his licence back (please tell me he's lost his licence) he can only drive cars up to 1000cc for the next five years? Surely there's room to be creative here.
Personally I think 'screw him'. He got tanked up and hit someone with his car. The car, and the licence, are not 'rights'. Whether his later reading was inflated or not, he's admitted he was drunk anyway when the incident occurred. Stupid [rude word].
And it really is a defence that smacks of 'I'm wealthy why should I suffer?' Basically losing the car is losing a certain amount of mobility - the value should be completely irrelevant, otherwise the law is being applied unequally (battered Vauxhall Nova owned by an apprentice painter and decorator - you'll lose that; Audi RS4 owned by a wealthy oil worker - you'll keep that).
Or to quote someone whose name I can't remember: "The law in all its equality prohibits the rich as well as the poor from stealing bread and sleeping under bridges." It's got to work both ways.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Baxter's Soup boss has been done for drink driving and banned for a year (and fined.... £600).
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/north/292481-baxters-soup-boss-admits-christmas-eve-drink-driving-charge
Now you can imagine someone being worried if their partner is ill. But. She tried to phone taxis and decided to drive him to the hospital only when she couldn't get hold of one. Erm. Y'know those ambulance things?
Of course she then parked blocking the ambulance entrance. And THEN drove home again over the limit (when there was no urgency to the situation).
Apparently she argued that losing her licence would be 'inconvenient'.
Posted 13 years ago # -
"According to recent figures Baxter, who has run the family's Scottish food group since 2000, is worth an estimated £116m."
They must be down on their luck then as they used to have a driver.
Posted 13 years ago # -
She said the loss of her driving licence would be a considerable inconvenience because she travelled extensively.
Oh well, she can just share some of her wealth with a temporary chauffeur I'm sure.
Posted 13 years ago # -
"She said the loss of her driving licence would be a considerable inconvenience because she travelled extensively."
I'm pretty sure it was inconvenient for the ambulance drivers when she blocked the entrance to A&E as well, and I know who I've more sympathy for!
As for a £600 fine, she probably paid it in change rather than break a note >:-<
About time we followed the approach of some other countries and made the level of fines a percentage of earnings/personal wealth. Then they could sting all equally!Posted 13 years ago # -
[quote]Oh well, she can just share some of her wealth with a temporary chauffeur I'm sure.[/quote]
I'm sure the company will pick up the tab for that. Essential business expense you see.
Posted 13 years ago # -
who he is or how much money he has spent on his panzer sled are irrelevant, no one is more equal !Arrogance in the extreme, he has a well paid job and an expensive car so the law as it stands shouldnt apply to him !!!!!Restores one s faith in scum bag lawyers though !!!!(not )
Posted 13 years ago # -
Should be given a Smart Car...
No that's a bit flippant. Plus they're indestructible.
Posted 13 years ago # -
If a 46 year old mother can lose her Land Rover Freelander* (see Scotsman story in thread passim) then he can, and should, lose his flippin' Audi! Got drunk after he went home: Aye, right!
* Currently priced from £22,000 to £36,000.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Ha, ha, ha....Smart cars are a German marque car, Mercedes I believe, so I think that quite appropriate LB, and also they are expensive!!
Posted 13 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
