Comments are usually moderated. However, I do not accept any legal responsibility for the content of any comment. If any comment seems submitted just to advertise a website it will not be published.

Wednesday, 18 April 2018

ANT McPARTLIN//COMMUNITY SENTENCE MORE SUITABLE?

I have blogged on the topic of fines a few times over the years  Indeed insert fines into the search box and they can be read by anyone interested. All this came back to me on reading of the £86K fine to multi millionaire entertainer Ant McPartlin for drink driving.  It would appear that he was fined at Band B [100% of weekly income admitted at £130K] with one third reduction for early guilty plea.  Considering the damage done to a third party it was surprising he wasn`t also charged with careless or dangerous driving in addition. Be that as it may, the financial imposition will make absolutely no difference to his current or future life style. Surely the public humiliation of community service would have been more appropriate in his case and for others whose vast fortunes and/or incomes render financial penalties a sanction without meaning.  
Posted by at

10 comments:

  1. Rogerborg18 April 2018 at 13:32

    A week's fine for someone on minimum wage could see them fall into the tender clutches of the local loan shark.

    A week's fine for Mr McPartlin will be an amusing footnote in his next tax (avoidance) return.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Phil19 April 2018 at 20:16

    "Surely the public humiliation of community service would have been more appropriate in his case". Really so a self important, spiteful ex-Adult Bench Chairman ( who doesn't use the Sentencing guideline pronouncements because he know better) bases his disposal of a hearing on "public humiliation" disgrace on you :-(

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rogerborg20 April 2018 at 13:52

      Sentencing is meant to be a deterrent. Those who have wronged the public have earned their disapprobation, and deserve to experience it without being able to simply buy their way out. The judicial system is just a formalisation of that natural social process.

      So yes, "public humiliation" is entirely called for.

      Delete
    2. Phil20 April 2018 at 14:25

      A fine proportionate to income, a driving ban following the guidelines. Early guilty plea, remorse and treatment for a drink problem. The disposal is correct.
      Because of his high public profile he has already been humiliated, his role with Declan may also be at risk.
      Sentencing guidelines were introduced to provide a level playing field and stop holier-than-thou Magistrates humiliating defendants. Perhaps you would have him in the stocks or wear a hi vi with I am a drink driver in the high street for two weeks.
      The sooner the old school spiteful Magistrates move on the better.

      Delete
    3. Rogerborg24 April 2018 at 09:22

      An early guilty plea because he was banged to rights. The exact amount of remorse instructed by his legal and PR teams. Another round of treatment after his single, momentary relapse - aren't they all?

      And of course the "My client has already suffered enough" crocodile tears from his brief. It may be true, but it's as rote as confirming your name and address.

      The thing about general guidelines is that they don't work for outliers. This sentence was not a deterrent.

      And you use humiliation as though it were a four letter word. Personally I'd birch the drunken sot, then send him out in a hi-vis to suffer the judgement of the great unwashed.

      The sooner we get past this silly social experiment in treating offenders as fragile peaches who will bruise if they're told in no uncertain terms that they've done wrong and that they should feel shamed, the better.

      Delete
    4. Phil24 April 2018 at 21:00

      Oh boy Rogerborg I really hope you are not a JP and have never been
      I thought the Hang em and flog em went out with the ark

      Delete
    5. Rogerborg25 April 2018 at 11:29

      It went out very recently, as human society goes, and only in a minority of nations. Most of the globe still deals with offenders as they deserve, and we will do so again once we realise that courtrooms with revolving doors are merely Justice Theatre.

      Have you had much contact with drink-drivers, burglars or muggers, I wonder?

      Delete
    6. Phil25 April 2018 at 14:08

      By Rogerborg - really cant deal with you point of view.

      Delete
  3. Biscwuit20 April 2018 at 20:36

    Except the starting point for 75ug is band C (150% of weekly income). As he wasn’t charged separately for the accident it should have been considered an aggravating feature of the drink driving. He was treated very leniently by the DJ (MC).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Phil21 April 2018 at 12:23

      Not the Magistrates nor the DJ job to decide what charges are appropriate.
      Accept your point on the fine band
      The courts are not there to humiliate people. Any spiteful judge who misuses his/her authority to humiliate defendants (or anybody else) should be dealt with using the policies and discipline rules in force.
      Spiteful, self important Magistrates do nothing to improve public confidence in the court system.

      Delete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)