Lifelong driving ban ‘not excessive’ for motorist with ‘appalling record’

The Sheriff Appeal Court dismissed Robert Laidlaw’s claim that the ban was “excessive” after noting that the appellant had an “appalling record” which included disqualification from driving on ten previous occasions.

Sheriff Principal Craig Turnbull, sitting with Sheriff Alasdair MacFadyen and Sheriff Sean Murphy QC, heard that Laidlaw, 26, pled guilty to two complaints containing five charges, which included dangerous driving, two charges of driving while disqualified and two of driving without insurance.

In relation to the first complaint, on the charge of driving while disqualified the appellant was sentenced to eight months imprisonment and disqualified from driving for life; while on the charge of driving without insurance the court admonished the appellant and made an order for endorsement.

In relation to the second complaint, on the charge of dangerous driving the appellant was sentenced to four months imprisonment and disqualified from driving for six years and until the extended driving test had been passed; on the charge of driving while disqualified the appellant was sentenced to eight months imprisonment and banned from driving for life; and the court admonished the appellant and made an order for endorsement for the charge of driving without insurance.

The court was told that the appellant had an “appalling record” for defying court orders by driving while disqualified.

The appellant had never held a driving licence; he sat and passed the theory test but was disqualified before he could sit the practical driving test.

He had been disqualified from driving on ten separate occasions – the first when he was only 16 years of age and the most recent in June 2016 when he was sentenced to eight months imprisonment – and of the ten periods of disqualification previously imposed seven were for contraventions of section 103(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, namely, driving while disqualified.

The court also heard that the dangerous driving charge on the second complaint followed an attempt to escape from the police while speeding and overtaking other vehicles on the wrong side of the road as he approached a blind corner, and that the police had to abandon their pursuit of the appellant for reasons of “public safety”.

No appeal was taken in respect of the custodial sentences imposed, but the appellant challenged the sheriff’s decisions to disqualify him for life.

It was submitted that the previous lengthy periods of disqualification had “clearly not worked” and that what would make the appellant “change his ways” was prison.

Counsel accepted that the appellant had a “bad record” and conceded that a ban of ten years of more could not be complained of, but maintained that there was a significant difference between a determinate ban and the indeterminate ban imposed by the sheriff, namely that the period of disqualification would be determinate, as opposed to an indeterminate period with the appellant having the right to apply for the disqualification to be removed after a determinate period.

However, the appeal sheriffs described the submissions as “misconceived”.

Delivering the opinion of the court, Sheriff Principal Turnbull said: “The concession, correctly made, that disqualification of a period of ten years of more could not be complained of…

“Prison has clearly not worked. The appellant has continued to drive whilst disqualified.

“There comes a time when the court must say enough is enough. That time has come in relation to the appellant.

“He has demonstrated a flagrant disregard for the law over a number of years. As we have noted, on one view, he was fortunate to receive the custodial sentence he did.”

The court also observed that in cases such as this, the maximum custodial term available to the court for a contravention of s.103(1)(b) of the 1988 Act was 12 months, which can often seem “inadequate”.

The Sheriff Principal added: “Standing the nature and extent of the appellant’s record, it cannot be said that, in this particular case, disqualification for life is excessive.

“If, as he asserts may happen, the appellant changes his ways, it will be open to him to make application to the court for removal of the disqualifications in terms of section 42.”