Where magistrates considered an offence for which a driving ban was discretionary, they were entitled at that stage to take account of the driving record, even though they knew they would have to take that same record into account when considering a totting up ban. There was no double jeopardy, since the two systems considered different aspects of the offence, the speed driven on this occasion, and the repetition creating a pattern of behaviour. The two systems were not mutually exclusive, or alternatives.
Citations:
Gazette 02-Nov-2000, Times 20-Oct-2000
Statutes:
Cited by:
Cited – Flegg v Justices of the Peace for the New Forest Local Justice Area Sitting at Lyndhurst Admn 21-Feb-2006
The defendant sought judicial review of the refusal by the magistrates to state a case. He was convicted for failing to identify the driver of a motor cycle of which he was a registered keeper which had been caught by a speed camera. Either of two . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing, Road Traffic
Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.82599
