Speeding soldier let off by judge.

Originally Posted by Masque

He broke the law with excessive speed and should not get away with such an outlandish offence.

But he did not get away with it did he. He was fined and had points added to his licence.

It may not have been the punishment you are looking for however he was tried in a court of law, found guilty and punished.

[Ignitionnet]

Unacceptable that he didn't lose his license.

Losing his license does not necessarily prejudice him doing his job, he can still drive on MoD property. Either way 143mph in a 50mph zone is totally unacceptable and dangerous, at that level of speed he's lucky to not be facing a dangerous driving / due care and attention charge

---------- Post added at 11:57 ---------- Previous post was at 11:55 ----------

Originally Posted by Tuftus

It may not have been the punishment you are looking for however he was tried in a court of law, found guilty and punished.

Though not to standard sentencing guidelines - he was let off lightly when he should have been banned. 145% of speed limit is sufficient for a ban, he was doing 286%.

Equivalent speed in a 70 mph limit 200.2 mph.

http://www.drivingban.co.uk/drivingb...bmit=Calculate

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by Tuftus

But he did not get away with it did he. He was fined and had points added to his licence.

It may not have been the punishment you are looking for however he was tried in a court of law, found guilty and punished.

It should be an automatic ban and you know it regardless of him being fined.

My point was that he did not *get away with it* as you said.

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by Tuftus

My point was that he did not *get away with it* as you said.

He got away without getting a ban but was fined, he should have been banned.

Originally Posted by Masque

He got away without getting a ban but was fined, he should have been banned.

That is more accurate but do not forget about the 6 points, he will certainly feel that when he comes to renew his insurance. Which at his age and for that car will most certainly be astronomical in the first place.

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by Tuftus

That is more accurate but do not forget about the 6 points, he will certainly feel that when he comes to renew his insurance. Which at his age and for that car will most certainly be astronomical in the first place.

Oh he will feel the cost but a ban should have been handed down as well as a fine.

Next we will have couriers trying the same line.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by peanut

So you prefer a tier system based on who you are etc. Regardless of the law etc, you believe some people should be beyond the law is that correct?

No, but in this case I'm prepared to accept the exception applied by the judge. As I understand it he needed the licence in order to be posted to Afghanistan.

He's a mechanic that repairs vehicles needed by our troops in order for them to be able to do their job. I'd rather he be out there doing what he does rather than troops having to use substandard equipment.

In my opinion on this occasion weighing up the balance he got it right.

I think a better judgement would have been to say sentence him with a defferred ban, say a 6 month ban, after, he returned from Afghanistan - I think that would have appeased everyone.

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by Pierre

No, but in this case I'm prepared to accept the exception applied by the judge. As I understand it he needed the licence in order to be posted to Afghanistan.

He's a mechanic that repairs vehicles needed by our troops in order for them to be able to do their job. I'd rather he be out there doing what he does rather than troops having to use substandard equipment.

In my opinion on this occasion weighing up the balance he got it right.

I think a better judgement would have been to say sentence him with a defferred ban, say a 6 month ban, after, he returned from Afghanistan - I think that would have appeased everyone.

Why would a ban stop him from driving in a war zone, you wonder if that was just used as an excuse to get off without a ban.

Originally Posted by peanut

So you prefer a tier system based on who you are etc. Regardless of the law etc, you believe some people should be beyond the law is that correct?

Sadly, we already have a tier system in place, it has been in place for years,with the highest respect, where have you been for so long?
It has always been the state saying do as I say not as I do.
Point in case, driving to work the other day, police car well over the speed limit goes past me, no blues on, why? because the driver obviously thinks that the uniform brings with it a priviledge to do anything they want.
Sorry to say this, good luck to the lad, there will be more people higher up the social and employment ladder breaking laws every day, laws that your average Joe has to obey.

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Conduct unbecoming, bring the name of the service into disrepute or making oneself unavailable for duty, perhaps?

Doubtful if any of those would be cause....

I had a quick look online and found the following....

Summary dealing deals with minor criminal and military offences alleged against

* private soldiers and Senior Non-Commissioned Officers
* Warrant Officers and officers

If you are accused of a minor criminal or military offence, a Commanding Officer may

* investigate the alleged offence

* conduct a summary hearing

* award limited punishments if the offence is proven

At any time before the summary hearing you can choose to be tried by Court-Martial if you do not want the Commanding Officer to deal with the case.

If the Commanding Officer finds the charge proven, they will award punishment after considering any mitigating circumstances.

The Commanding Officer has limited powers of punishment

* up to 28 days' detention (up to 60 days' detention if special permission is granted)

* fine of up to 28 days' pay

* a range of lesser penalties

Summary Appeal Court

All accused dealt with by summary hearing can appeal to the Summary Appeal Court, but must normally do so within 14 days of the date of the award.

The Summary Appeal Court consists of a judge advocate and two officers who will rehear the evidence. They may then uphold, quash or vary the Commanding Officer's finding and/or award.

On occasion I had to play escourt for OC's Orders where minor offences would be settled by the Squadron OC. So my guess would be that he'd face the above, rather than a Court's Martial....

[peanut]

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

Sadly, we already have a tier system in place, it has been in place for years,with the highest respect, where have you been for so long?
It has always been the state saying do as I say not as I do.
Point in case, driving to work the other day, police car well over the speed limit goes past me, no blues on, why? because the driver obviously thinks that the uniform brings with it a priviledge to do anything they want.
Sorry to say this, good luck to the lad, there will be more people higher up the social and employment ladder breaking laws every day, laws that your average Joe has to obey.

Oh I know, from celebs to footballers etc always seem to escape with just a slap on the wrist etc. I asked this just as it was a soldier given with the excuse that he goes to war that it's ok for him to endanger his own and other people's lives. But I agree also about the 'uniform' thing as well.

Obviously it doesn't mean it's right, and all we can do is moan about it. I don't on the other hand see how it's justified in this case, a few mph over the limit maybe, but then it wouldn't be news would it, but at that speed and still get off, it's too blatant and it's rubbing our noses in it so to speak.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Masque

If he lost his UK Licence as he should have then he would be prevented from driving on UK soil and we cannot have a second military licence that overrides that as that would be even more of a mockery.

What I mean is if the army are going to be a driver down for their needs, then that is detrimetal to them not him.
With an armed forces licence, if he is driving on legitimate armed forces business then he would be able to do that.
He'd also be able to have his civilian licence taken away, preventing him driving non-military vehicles legally.
At the moment we have the situation where he can still legally drive anything he could drive before he went to court.

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

What I mean is if the army are going to be a driver down for their needs, then that is detrimetal to them not him.
With an armed forces licence, if he is driving on legitimate armed forces business then he would be able to do that.
He'd also be able to have his civilian licence taken away, preventing him driving non-military vehicles legally.
At the moment we have the situation where he can still legally drive anything he could drive before he went to court.

Regardless of job his licence should have been revoked as we cannot have double standards, it is to late here but may set a precedent of military drivers using their job as an excuse not to lose their licences.

If it was you or me our licence would be gone regardless of job and the same should have applied here.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Masque

Regardless of job his licence should have been revoked as we cannot have double standards, it is to late here but may set a precedent of military drivers using their job as an excuse not to lose their licences.

If it was you or me our licence would be gone regardless of job and the same should have applied here.

Several "normal" people have kept their licence in exchange for a higher fine or more points due to their "normal" jobs.
Introduce an armed forces licence and there would be no reason not to take away their civilian licence then.