I was up for 102 on A38 in Devon (wife's Saxo VTR), represented myself, got 6 points and £235 fine, so 'ton-up' is not ALWAYS a ban, but i think i cut it very fine. 127 - hmm..... I did plead extreme hardship, etc. The full details are in another post somewhere, if i find it, i'll edit and post the link.

Edited with link: http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showthrea...42#post4614942

 

We should have this as a sticky !
There are guidelines that magistrates work to. On a road with a 70mph limit they are (approximately):-

100-109mph "discretion" ban, 7-14 days typically, or maybe 6 points and a big fine if special hardship would be caused by a ban (and inability to get to work, can't take kids to school, loss of job are the usual mitigating circumstances pleaded and often have little effect! It just depends on the magistrate that day.)
110-119mph, ban of between 4 weeks and 12 weeks plus fine
120-129mph, ban of between 12 weeks and ... not sure, maybe 24 weeks, plus fine.
130-139mph, ... you get the picture how it escalates

There would have to be absolutely unique and extraordinary circumstances for a magistrate to not give a ban in 2005 for doing 127mph. I'm talking saving London from a nuclear bomb type of extra ordinary!!! The magistrate would have to throw the guidelines out the window in which case there would probably be questions about their fitness for the bench. It just isn't going to happen.

Tell you mate to get his bike fixed up and check the local bus timetables.

 

My mate got done on his bike at 120-odd on a dual carriageway, got £500 and 56 day ban, he said they went really easy on him in court and it helped that he'd sold the bike.

 

I am pretty certain that 100+ is an automatic ban unless you are famous or very rich and you will then have some form of specious excuse which will be accepted by the court!

Les

 

Tel, use your brains.
"I need to get to work at the crack of dawn to ensure capital is efficiently managed for investment to ensure the continuing success of the great economy of UK Plc."
Or to that effect, I'm sure a clever lawyer, or banker, can improve on my ever so 'umble effort.



HTH (not HtH)

Ps, I know your version is the truth, but hey, it's all about sentiment.

 

Si, yes he was stopped at the scene. They said it would take a while, and it's been nearly a month now, but he's had nothing through the post yet.


Vege - yes, absolutely. His dilemma though is that his director is willing to write a supporting letter telling the court that he needs to be in early to do his job, and this will be extremely difficult without a private car. However, to get this, he will have to come clean about it being a highly paid "privileged" City job. Difficult to tell which side the judge will come down on i guess.

 

It's taken about 3/4 months for my niece to get her court appearance for 90 in a 60 from a camera.

Probably needs a good specialist lawyer who will know the attitude and "foibles" of any particular judge and therefore the best approach to take.

 

Wrong

 

Would you care to enlighten me then?

 

Having been through this sort of scenario several times myself, I can tell you the following

- there is no such thing an an automatic ban, but it would be amazing NOT to get a ban at 127mph.

- if he is summonsed (and he will be, though it might well be a couple of months) it will clearly state the charge. If he's done for dangerous or reckless driving, then watch out, because custodial is a real possibility.

- on the assumption that he'll only be charged with speeding (hopefully he's still OK on this, though I'd suggest he's right on the limit), then a 12 month ban is entirely possible, though if he has a relatively clean licence, it might be as little as three months. I reckon a mid point of 6 months is likely.

- any letters from directors etc will be useful, but he'll probably be asked the reasonably obvious question - "why don't you use public transport, or take a taxi, just like everyone else has to do". I was certainly asked about this, and was able to give some justification, but the guy ahead of me had a disabled mother, lived in the middle of nowhere (and could prove it) but still got banned.

- the sort of car may well be commented on - I was asked why I was riding such a high-powered motorcycle. The answer "because it's legal and I've been licensed to do so by the Government" was not the wisest one I could have given.

- a solicitor is essential, though for heaven's sake use one who actually has experience of these matters. I used Andreas Serghis (based in Brighton) who was excellent, but I had a previous who was terrible.

- the best defence seems to be that you were carried away, you realise the gravity of the situation, you've recognised this by bringing along legal representation, and that you ARE guilty. You have no excuse, so you might as well make a play of the fact and state that you're an idiot.

- get the barrister to point out all the driving courses you've been on, but make sure it's pointed out that you're only mentioning this because it shows you have car control. You fully accept the difference between the road and the track etc etc.

- it's worth investigating whether the local force have one of those "do a speeding course and lose the points" options. Even if you're not offered it, stating in court that you've looked into this might help.

- accept the fact that the book will be thrown at you. 127mph is simply not acceptable to the courts, regardless of the skill of the driver or the ability of the car, and as a result the punishment will be harsh. I got 5 points and a small fine (due to being between jobs and therefore technically unemployed) when I was done for 99 on a motorway, and 6 points/£1000 when I had a similar situation of 90 in a 50.

 

Cheers moose, that's a lot of useful information. I'll pass that on, even though it doesn't say what he wants to hear, unfortunately! But what you say does sound about right to me.

 

Oh and thanks tel, I had some of the best sex in ages last night.

Credit where credit's due.

 

LOL, go back to where you belong!!

 

Hampshire had a bigger fish to fry at recently with a lad on a bike doing over 150mph. Hes in the navy, they gave him a ban in his abscence at court and a fine.

Expect a month ban, fine of around £500.00 and possibly 6 points to sit him on 9 to keep him on his toes. Thats where I place my money

 

NO!! There many non-imprisonable summary offences, speeding being one of them.

 

so why can no-one state weather custodial sentences apply to speeding ?

Im assuming that speeding only is non-custodial but caught at really high speeds would incur a further charge automatically of dangerous driving which does incur a custodial ??

 

Paul, as I stated above, its a 100% FACT that speeding is non-imprisonable, by law!!

It can only be imprisonable when charged as dangerous driving, and then the prosecution must prove that the speed was dangerous.

So of this dude is summoned for speeding, he will not have any chance of being imprisoned, as it cant be done in law.

Trust me , I know what Im talking about...I work in the industry!

 

You're correct. Speeding per se has no imprisonment option (thankfully) but it's not at all uncommon for further charges to be brought if very high speeds are involved, and these may well have a custodial possibility.