The story of Keith Baldock – still driving with 54 points on
his licence – is one of many concerning drivers who have managed to stay on the
road with more than 12 points on their licence, that have hit the headlines in
the last twelve months. You can see more details here: http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kentish_gazette/news/keith-baldock-13012/
Each story is attended with comment that it is scandalous
for such drivers to be on the road, and imputations that magistrates are soft
and judges overly lenient. The explanation is in fact usually rather more
complex.
Mr. Baldock appeared in the Crown Court because he faced
charges of theft: he had driven around filling stations, stealing fuel to a
total value of about £500. He also faced five charges of driving without
insurance – an offence which carries a minimum of six points. The judge gave
him six points (a total of thirty) and went on to say that he was making no
order for disqualification because Mr. Baldock was looking for a job, and
needed to be able to drive, to get one.
Circuit Judges, sitting in the Crown Court – and their
clerks - are far more used to dealing
with robberies, rapes, and cases involving drugs and serious violence, than
motoring offences. Driving without insurance is something that comes before
them only when it is “sent up” from the Magistrates Court along with other
offences. In fact, almost all motoring matters are “summary only” offences,
which on their own do not find their way to the Crown Court. So it’s even rarer
for a Crown Court judge to have to consider the need to disqualify when a
driver reaches or exceeds twelve penalty points. Demanding to see a defendant’s
licence, or a DVLA print-out, before dealing with him for a motoring offence,
would be routine at the Magistrates’ Court where benches and legal advisors are
on the eagle-eyed lookout for a totter. Not so in the Crown Court.
A court CAN disqualify for any offence of driving without
insurance: disqualification is discretionary for that offence, and always on
the table. In saying that he made no order for disqualification, the judge in
Keith Baldock’s case may well have been saying that he was not going to
exercise that power for any of the five offences before him. And totting up
seems not then to have been drawn to his attention until it was too late.
Too late? The “slip rule” provides that a judge in the Crown
Court can adjust a sentence – upwards or downwards – if an error is drawn to
his attention within 56 days. After that, it’s simply too late. And by the time
the DVLA wrote to the court to point out that Mr. Baldock’s latest thirty
points would give him a total of 54 and make him an egregious candidate for
disqualification, the 56 days had passed.
Should we worry too much? Probably not: cases like this are
exceedingly rare. There are hundred of thousands of road traffic cases a year
and the vast majority of them are dealt with by our courts without error of any
kind, let alone errors of this magnitude. There will always be mistakes in any
endeavour in which human beings are involved.
