|
Magistrates’ sentencing guidelines for a 50mph limit only cover speeds up to 76mph. For this, the suggested penalty is a fine of 1.5 times weekly income (reduced by a third for a guilty plea), 6 points or a ban of up to 56 days. The excess (26mph) covered by these guidelines is 50% as near as makes no odds. A footnote to the guidelines suggests that
“Where an offender is driving grossly in excess of the speed limit the court should consider a disqualification in excess of 56 days.”
Your son was recorded at 80% over the limit and whilst it is not a precise mathematical exercise when the guidelines have been exceeded (or indeed when the offence falls within the guidelines) this will give you some idea of how the court arrived at its sentence. Incidentally it is not a curious amount. It is twice the maximum covered by the guidelines and is, in fact, 16 weeks.
The inconvenience or hardship such a disqualification brings is, strictly speaking not a matter for the court’s consideration. The argument that “Exceptional Hardship” may be visited on the defendant or others is only available for “totting up” bans. However, magistrates are human and will listen to any such representations even if not strictly applicable to the situation. But 90 in a 50 is serious speeding and they obviously dismissed any such representations from their decision.
Clearly the court took the view that your son was driving “grossly in excess of the speed limit” and increased the disqualification period accordingly. My view is that the sentence was not at all harsh.
|
