An imbalance of Justice?

[Manx Bean]

My attention was caught today by two very different court cases that appeared on Manx Radio and IOMtoday.

The first is about a 17 year old who managed to drive off Marine Drive with 2 mates in his car, which could have very easily resulted in 2 deaths - he got fined £700, 6 points on his licence and made to keep his R Plates on for a further 2 years - https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/marine-drive-r-plate-driver-fined-after-driving-friends-over-cliff/

In contrast, some bloke who left his car engine running and was then found to be uninsured to drive his partner's car - also fined £700 and 6 points on his licence - http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=63485&headline=Motorist who left car's engine running must pay hundreds in fine&sectionIs=news&searchyear=2021

Seems way out of kilter to me...??

 

 

[CallMeCurious]

22 minutes ago, Manx Bean said:

My attention was caught today by two very different court cases that appeared on Manx Radio and IOMtoday.

The first is about a 17 year old who managed to drive off Marine Drive with 2 mates in his car, which could have very easily resulted in 2 deaths - he got fined £700, 6 points on his licence and made to keep his R Plates on for a further 2 years - https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/marine-drive-r-plate-driver-fined-after-driving-friends-over-cliff/

In contrast, some bloke who left his car engine running and was then found to be uninsured to drive his partner's car - also fined £700 and 6 points on his licence - http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=63485&headline=Motorist who left car's engine running must pay hundreds in fine&sectionIs=news&searchyear=2021

Seems way out of kilter to me...??

 

 

Ah but one was trying to kill the planet with CO2. I wonder when we'll see the first postie prosecuted for the same thing?

[John Wright]

39 minutes ago, Manx Bean said:

My attention was caught today by two very different court cases that appeared on Manx Radio and IOMtoday.

The first is about a 17 year old who managed to drive off Marine Drive with 2 mates in his car, which could have very easily resulted in 2 deaths - he got fined £700, 6 points on his licence and made to keep his R Plates on for a further 2 years - https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/marine-drive-r-plate-driver-fined-after-driving-friends-over-cliff/

In contrast, some bloke who left his car engine running and was then found to be uninsured to drive his partner's car - also fined £700 and 6 points on his licence - http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=63485&headline=Motorist who left car's engine running must pay hundreds in fine&sectionIs=news&searchyear=2021

Seems way out of kilter to me...??

 

 

Is there a discrepancy? The offences seem to me to reflect the seriousness of the respective offences, and their outcomes.

1. the inexperienced driver youngster clipped a kerb and lost control. The fact the car went over the cliff is irrelevant because the outcome was no death or serious injury. So it’s a simple due care. People aren’t sentenced, generally, on what ifs.

2. The experienced older driver didn’t just leave his vehicle, keys in it, engine running, but had driven it to where he left it without insurance. No insurance is a serious offence, in fact it’s almost a what if offence. The what if is the serious consequence to third parties of driving with no insurance.

As ability to pay will also have been taken into account, and any previous, they’re what I’d have expected. Spot on.

£700 fine due care

£50 fine engine running, so not a huge climate change penalty.

£650 fine no insurance

The adult had a previous no insurance conviction.

[Annoymouse]

There is definitely an imbalance, the older driver had previous for no insurance so clearly hasn’t learnt their lesson and the fine seems rather low to me, assuming he was also given points (no mention of it?) a £650 fine is probably less than the cost of his insurance would be.

[Barlow]

With the cost of insurance, the fine should be much more. Just now, get away with it for a year or two and a scrote is always going to be on a winner.

[John Wright]

25 minutes ago, Annoymouse said:

There is definitely an imbalance, the older driver had previous for no insurance so clearly hasn’t learnt their lesson and the fine seems rather low to me, assuming he was also given points (no mention of it?) a £650 fine is probably less than the cost of his insurance would be.

The report says 6. 

[Andy Onchan]

3 hours ago, John Wright said:

The adult had a previous no insurance conviction.

At what point does this re-occurrence carry a custodial sentence..... if for no other reason than keeping the twat off the road?

[wrighty]

In Australia cars have compulsory 3rd party insurance as part of the 'tax disc', so assuming a car is appropriately registered, these sorts of things are avoided, and any qualified permitted (ie owner's consent) driver is legally allowed to drive any vehicle.  It's a good system in my view. 

[John Wright]

9 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

At what point does this re-occurrence carry a custodial sentence..... if for no other reason than keeping the twat off the road?

Probably never,  with an 8 year gap between convictions.

Frequent no insurance infringements might go over the custody threshold.

Custody for no insurance is rare, and usually only combined with DUI or TWOC or dangerous driving causing serious injury.

[Happier diner]

5 minutes ago, wrighty said:

In Australia cars have compulsory 3rd party insurance as part of the 'tax disc', so assuming a car is appropriately registered, these sorts of things are avoided, and any qualified permitted (ie owner's consent) driver is legally allowed to drive any vehicle.  It's a good system in my view. 

Are you sure about that? I thought Aus was the same as NZ where you paid insurance on your pay (ACC) and car insurance was voluntary

[John Wright]

6 minutes ago, wrighty said:

In Australia cars have compulsory 3rd party insurance as part of the 'tax disc', so assuming a car is appropriately registered, these sorts of things are avoided, and any qualified permitted (ie owner's consent) driver is legally allowed to drive any vehicle.  It's a good system in my view. 

Fully agree. My Bulgaria and Spanish policies cover the car any driver basic road traffic act cover for anyone. I then buy bolt on for fully comp for named drivers, extra liability cover, etc.

[Happier diner]

8 minutes ago, wrighty said:

In Australia cars have compulsory 3rd party insurance as part of the 'tax disc', so assuming a car is appropriately registered, these sorts of things are avoided, and any qualified permitted (ie owner's consent) driver is legally allowed to drive any vehicle.  It's a good system in my view. 

Actually Aus IS different to NZ, but the compulsory insurance is only 3rd party injury and not value of car or other peoples property

[Annoymouse]

54 minutes ago, John Wright said:

The report says 6. 

So it does, well with 6 points his insurance should be ridiculously expensive, so hopefully they’ll be keeping an eye out because it’s highly likely to happen again. 
 

 

[Annoymouse]

35 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Fully agree. My Bulgaria and Spanish policies cover the car any driver basic road traffic act cover for anyone. I then buy bolt on for fully comp for named drivers, extra liability cover, etc.

Tell me more please John, how does that work? Our insurances policy’s are based on individual risk and sometimes feels like there is no rhyme or reason as to how they’ve calculated the policy cost.

So you buy a policy for the car to cover any legal driver (how about convictions or health conditions etc?!) so effectively third party cover, you then have the option to insure named drivers at what would be fully comp?

[wrighty]

46 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

Actually Aus IS different to NZ, but the compulsory insurance is only 3rd party injury and not value of car or other peoples property

You might be right - 18 years since I lived there.  It was probably to cover medical bills - RTA victims were treated more like private patients and the consultants and hospital could claim from their '3rd party cover'.