OllyK

The Judicial system really is losing the plot!

BBC NEWS | Wales | South West Wales | Wild bird offences bring car ban

boxst

What a bizarre sentence. I'm sure if he had a competent lawyer they would get that overturned in a second.

On the other hand, it is thinking 'out of the box' as a fine would just be paid back at 25p a week.

Steve

The Zohan

What an odd punishment - does not seem to relate to the crime or as a deterrent in any way.

If this bloke deals in illegal birds and is a criminal and happy to lie about his dealings then does the judge really think a driving ban will impede him in any way - yet again out of touch with the realities of the modern world

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

Weird... perhaps if I'm ever convicted of a driving offence I could ask to be banned from keeping wild animals rather than having points on my license?

Puff The Magic Wagon!

iTrader: (2)

"man of limited means"

Rather than giving him a financial penalty, which he could not afford so would have been derisory, the judge chose to restrict his liberty by taking away his licence for a period of time.

I don't see a problem with intelligent sentencing like that.

PaulC72

He probably doesn't drive anyway LOL.

SwissTony

iTrader: (19)

especially as the guy obviously drives around purchasing these birds , so yes a way and means of stopping his activities and a form of punishment that wasn't monetary.
Unless of course he gets his mate "flutter " dave to drive him around all the time

kingofturds

iTrader: (1)

A bullet in the head would have been better.

Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

He still has to pay a grand in costs though, seems a bit harsh if you ask me.

Kieran_Burns

iTrader: (1)

that was a slap in the face from the judge for not pleading guilty when it was bloody obvious he was

ritchie21

A judge can actually disqualify anybody from driving for any offence - little known provision in the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. Judges tend to only do it though when driving has been a key element in the commission of the offence but not per se illegal. Happens quite regularly and pi$$es most off that it happens to as they know (if they are well known to the local constabulary) that they will be done for Disq Driving if they try and drive.

Hit em where it hurts - great!

22BUK

If he's on benefits and is of "limited means", how can he afford to run a car?
Confiscate the car in lieu of a fine instead of a driving ban, surely makes more sense?

Jer

It will probably be a mobility car paid by us anyway.

Luminous

iTrader: (3)

hmmm, not sure about this case without seeing the facts.

Seems to be more of guilty until proven innocent. The judge criticised him for not providing evidence for where he got the birds. Surely it is not for him to provide evidence where they came from, that is the job of the prosecution.

If a copper came into my house and said I had nicked the stereo sitting in the corner, could I really find the receipt to show that I had actually bought it? Probably not. It should be for the copper to offer some sort of proof that I nicked it, not just suggest that this is the case.

Not sure on the driving ban either...seems strange

Leslie

I certainly don't condone keeping wild birds illegally, but a driving ban can't be right since it does not relate directly to the crime. A Gaol sentance would have been more appropriate.

Les

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

Wouldn't it have been best to imprison him, then train the smartest parrot he'd illegally obtained to sit outside his cell and repeat:

"So, how do you like it?"

Ns "Division of ironic punishment" 04

rbaz

iTrader: (1)