On August 25th I commented on Freddy
Flintoff`s collision with the courts with regard to a speeding allegation. Contrary to my prediction he appeared before
a bench in Carlisle and not a District Judge. My title "One Law for Them..?" was apt but not as I had foreseen.
I commented on “exceptional
hardship” on January 31st and June 30th. This is
the argument that Mr Flintoff`s representative yesterday argued successfully. Bearing in mind there is only the news report
upon which to make comment I must say I am appalled by my colleagues` decision
to accept the argument. In very very
simple terms it is IMHO an argument that wealthy people can rarely substantiate. The term hardship refers to hardship caused
to others than the offender and it encompasses situations where that offender`s inability to drive for the
proscribed period is relevant. For a person of means, any and I mean any such inconvenience can be overcome by the
employment of a driver. There is quite
rightly a difference in the application
of the hardship “get out of jail free” card between those of average
income and the wealthy. The former might be unable to afford taxis to
ensure eg a sick person who is reliant
upon the offender can attend hospital appointments or other similar
arguments. An individual who can drive around in a
Bentley and who is recognised as very wealthy can easily afford to employ a
driver or contract a taxi service to substitute for the temporary status of
being disqualified. I have to admit to
being appalled by this decision. It
brings the law into disrepute and the bench chairman`s reported remarks are
completely misplaced; David Johnson, chair of the bench, said:
"Because of your position, the fact that you are well known, clearly the impact has to be on others,
more than you yourself." No doubt
in another court at another time an offender whose plea of exceptional hardship
is refused would have a right to comment, “So I`m not as famous as Freddy
Flintoff....”. To say I am dismayed would be an
understatement.
You weren't in the retiring room, so why are you 'appalled' by the bench's decision? The Times today makes it clear a ban would affect his charity work, but he won't be able to use that excuse again:
ReplyDelete"JPs at Carlisle Magistrates’ Court accepted that a ban would amount to exceptional hardship because of the effect on others who rely on the 36-year-old’s extensive charity work, as well as the privacy of his three children.
"Flintoff’s solicitor, Michael Neofytou, told the court a ban would also affect his media work - with the defendant scheduled to be filming a show in Northern Ireland tomorrow, a “road trip” where he drives a fish and chips van powered by the van’s cooking fat.The Ashes winner was warned that he would not be able to use the same exceptional hardship reasons again in court if he was caught speeding again in the next three years."
His charity work would have been unaffected by employing a driver.........I am appalled and have made my reasons clear.
DeleteAgree totally with the views expressed in the original topic.
ReplyDeleteFame isn't relevant. Filming work isn't either. Charity work can be adjusted/rescheduled/otherwise accommodated.
It never ceases to amaze me how these drivers suddenly recognise the importance of their licence but never though to protect it by driving in a responsible manner in the first place, thus avoiding the possibility of a ban. In other words, those who really believe that exceptional hardship would be incurred to third parties have least excuse of all.
He got away with it , plain and simple.