Lesson not learned for banned driver

Worcester News: Lesson not learned for banned driver Lesson not learned for banned driver

A MAN who admitted driving a car without insurance for a second time has been banned from the roads by a judge after he appeared at Worcester Magistrates Court.

Steven Martin, aged 20, of Tintern Avenue, off Astwood Road, Worcester was stopped by police after driving a Peugeot 406 Worcester on May 20.

Kerry Lovegrove, prosecuting, said the car showed up on the police computer as not being covered by insurance.

Martin had already had his driving licence revoked for a previous case of driving with no insurance which attracts six points.

Because he was not out of his two year probationary period his licence had already been taken off him.

He said: “I’m sorry for doing it. It’s not going to happen again.”

With six more penalty points placed on his licence by district judge Nigel Cadbury, Martin was banned from driving for six months as a totter (12 points of more on his licence).

Mr Cadbury said he gave Martin credit for his early guilty plea and ordered him to pay a fine of £110, £60 costs and a £15 victim surcharge.

Comments (17)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:07pm Sun 16 Dec 12

Guy66 says...

"£110, £60 costs and a £15 victim surcharge"

And if he had caused a major accident with no insurance who would have paid the bill for this irresponsible idiot - the tax payer!

The fine is pathetic and no incentive to stop doing the same thing again - which I think he will probably do, 70% sure.

Time to make an example of people who think they are above the law.

Next time a prison sentence of 7 years and a £5000 fine to be paid within 2 years or another 4 years are added to the original sentence....
"£110, £60 costs and a £15 victim surcharge" And if he had caused a major accident with no insurance who would have paid the bill for this irresponsible idiot - the tax payer! The fine is pathetic and no incentive to stop doing the same thing again - which I think he will probably do, 70% sure. Time to make an example of people who think they are above the law. Next time a prison sentence of 7 years and a £5000 fine to be paid within 2 years or another 4 years are added to the original sentence.... Guy66
  • Score: 0

1:11am Mon 17 Dec 12

jb says...

He said: “I’m sorry for doing it. It’s not going to happen again.”

Mr Cadbury gave him credit for his guilty plea, which makes Mr Cadbury as a magistrate as useful as a chocolate teapot! Yet again a punishment weaker than a slap on the wrist.
He said: “I’m sorry for doing it. It’s not going to happen again.” Mr Cadbury gave him credit for his guilty plea, which makes Mr Cadbury as a magistrate as useful as a chocolate teapot! Yet again a punishment weaker than a slap on the wrist. jb
  • Score: 0

7:56am Mon 17 Dec 12

Kyoujin says...

The kids just another uncontrolled chav, like many others from broken britain. With quotes after this report like "yeah but **** the law" and " insurance costs to much" off his facebook,you can be sure his 406 will be on the road again.
The kids just another uncontrolled chav, like many others from broken britain. With quotes after this report like "yeah but **** the law" and " insurance costs to much" off his facebook,you can be sure his 406 will be on the road again. Kyoujin
  • Score: 0

9:08am Mon 17 Dec 12

Respectable says...

He'll probably just drive without the licence as well as no insurance now. Boneheads like this only understand very basic punishment... Crush the car..!!
He'll probably just drive without the licence as well as no insurance now. Boneheads like this only understand very basic punishment... Crush the car..!! Respectable
  • Score: 0

10:27am Mon 17 Dec 12

mayall8808 says...

British justice for you, this yob should have got as Guy66 says, Next time a prison sentence of 7 years and a £5000 fine to be paid within 2 years or another 4 years are added to the original sentence...
Plus scrap the car, and any further motoring offence another 3 years no court, hammer all of them who do this and then the message will get through.

These idiots could kill or maime someone for life and its not only the taxpayer who ends up paying but all involved families etc,,
British justice for you, this yob should have got as Guy66 says, Next time a prison sentence of 7 years and a £5000 fine to be paid within 2 years or another 4 years are added to the original sentence... Plus scrap the car, and any further motoring offence another 3 years no court, hammer all of them who do this and then the message will get through. These idiots could kill or maime someone for life and its not only the taxpayer who ends up paying but all involved families etc,, mayall8808
  • Score: 0

11:14am Mon 17 Dec 12

More Tea Vicar says...

mayall8808 wrote:
British justice for you, this yob should have got as Guy66 says, Next time a prison sentence of 7 years and a £5000 fine to be paid within 2 years or another 4 years are added to the original sentence...
Plus scrap the car, and any further motoring offence another 3 years no court, hammer all of them who do this and then the message will get through.

These idiots could kill or maime someone for life and its not only the taxpayer who ends up paying but all involved families etc,,
Well said.

He'll be on the road again in no time, else, and will not be caught until or unless he's in another accident or incident.
[quote][p][bold]mayall8808[/bold] wrote: British justice for you, this yob should have got as Guy66 says, Next time a prison sentence of 7 years and a £5000 fine to be paid within 2 years or another 4 years are added to the original sentence... Plus scrap the car, and any further motoring offence another 3 years no court, hammer all of them who do this and then the message will get through. These idiots could kill or maime someone for life and its not only the taxpayer who ends up paying but all involved families etc,,[/p][/quote]Well said. He'll be on the road again in no time, else, and will not be caught until or unless he's in another accident or incident. More Tea Vicar
  • Score: 0

11:52am Mon 17 Dec 12

melissajane says...

People like him are the reason why good drivers like us find our insurances going up and up because they can't be bothered room pay their own!
People like him are the reason why good drivers like us find our insurances going up and up because they can't be bothered room pay their own! melissajane
  • Score: 0

5:20pm Mon 17 Dec 12

RobertR says...

Why doesn't the government introduce a simple third party only scheme with government backing to enable young drivers to obtain cheap insurance cover?. Granted that some idiots will not pay however cheap it is!.
Why not adopt the european method of having your insurance displayed on the windscreen as per the tax disc?.
Why doesn't the government introduce a simple third party only scheme with government backing to enable young drivers to obtain cheap insurance cover?. Granted that some idiots will not pay however cheap it is!. Why not adopt the european method of having your insurance displayed on the windscreen as per the tax disc?. RobertR
  • Score: 0

6:30pm Mon 17 Dec 12

TDH123 says...

jb wrote:
He said: “I’m sorry for doing it. It’s not going to happen again.”

Mr Cadbury gave him credit for his guilty plea, which makes Mr Cadbury as a magistrate as useful as a chocolate teapot! Yet again a punishment weaker than a slap on the wrist.
Presumably a Cadbury's chocolate tea-pot?!
Surely the fine should be greater than the cheapest insurance cover which this individual could obtain otherwise where is the incentive for him to comply with the law??
[quote][p][bold]jb[/bold] wrote: He said: “I’m sorry for doing it. It’s not going to happen again.” Mr Cadbury gave him credit for his guilty plea, which makes Mr Cadbury as a magistrate as useful as a chocolate teapot! Yet again a punishment weaker than a slap on the wrist.[/p][/quote]Presumably a Cadbury's chocolate tea-pot?! Surely the fine should be greater than the cheapest insurance cover which this individual could obtain otherwise where is the incentive for him to comply with the law?? TDH123
  • Score: 0

8:53am Tue 18 Dec 12

pronstar says...

mayall8808 wrote:
British justice for you, this yob should have got as Guy66 says, Next time a prison sentence of 7 years and a £5000 fine to be paid within 2 years or another 4 years are added to the original sentence...
Plus scrap the car, and any further motoring offence another 3 years no court, hammer all of them who do this and then the message will get through.

These idiots could kill or maime someone for life and its not only the taxpayer who ends up paying but all involved families etc,,
I'm surprised you don't recommend chopping his hands off.

Glad you're not in charge of justice. Do insured drivers never cause fatal accidents?
[quote][p][bold]mayall8808[/bold] wrote: British justice for you, this yob should have got as Guy66 says, Next time a prison sentence of 7 years and a £5000 fine to be paid within 2 years or another 4 years are added to the original sentence... Plus scrap the car, and any further motoring offence another 3 years no court, hammer all of them who do this and then the message will get through. These idiots could kill or maime someone for life and its not only the taxpayer who ends up paying but all involved families etc,,[/p][/quote]I'm surprised you don't recommend chopping his hands off. Glad you're not in charge of justice. Do insured drivers never cause fatal accidents? pronstar
  • Score: 0

11:42am Tue 18 Dec 12

Respectable says...

What sort of crass statement is that ?
If you haven't paid for insurance you have no right to be on the road.. End Of.Whether there are fatalities or not you should not be on the road.

Don't forget for every uninsured driver that is involved in an accident, the costs get recouped from the people that do pay.

To defend it suggests that your happy to fund it !
What sort of crass statement is that ? If you haven't paid for insurance you have no right to be on the road.. End Of.Whether there are fatalities or not you should not be on the road. Don't forget for every uninsured driver that is involved in an accident, the costs get recouped from the people that do pay. To defend it suggests that your happy to fund it ! Respectable
  • Score: 0

11:56am Tue 18 Dec 12

mayall8808 says...

Well said,Respectable!
Sometimes i think some people on here have a screw loose,?

pronstar and ushmush, have you ever been smashed by a drunk driver? no tax no insurance? then you have no idea what you are on about.
Well said,Respectable! Sometimes i think some people on here have a screw loose,? pronstar and ushmush, have you ever been smashed by a drunk driver? no tax no insurance? then you have no idea what you are on about. mayall8808
  • Score: 0

4:36pm Tue 18 Dec 12

pronstar says...

mayall8808 wrote:
Well said,Respectable!
Sometimes i think some people on here have a screw loose,?

pronstar and ushmush, have you ever been smashed by a drunk driver? no tax no insurance? then you have no idea what you are on about.
He was diving with no insurance, not drunk and he didn't cause an accident.

You suggest that up to 11 years in prison is a suitable punishment for this particular offence and then have the audacity to say I have a screw loose.
[quote][p][bold]mayall8808[/bold] wrote: Well said,Respectable! Sometimes i think some people on here have a screw loose,? pronstar and ushmush, have you ever been smashed by a drunk driver? no tax no insurance? then you have no idea what you are on about.[/p][/quote]He was diving with no insurance, not drunk and he didn't cause an accident. You suggest that up to 11 years in prison is a suitable punishment for this particular offence and then have the audacity to say I have a screw loose. pronstar
  • Score: 0

3:30pm Wed 19 Dec 12

ushmush83 says...

Haha, I didn't even comment on this article and you're picking on me! Brilliant.

As it happens, I do not think that 7 years in prison is a suitable punishment for the crime. If he killed someone whilst driving dangerously, intoxicated or otherwise, I see no reason why being uninsured makes it any worse to be honest. Murder is murder.

It is a different case to the other one however, as he is a repeat offender, and has quite clearly flouted the law. I feel the fine should be a lot more, in the thousands. The girl in the other story received a bigger fine for a first offence.
Haha, I didn't even comment on this article and you're picking on me! Brilliant. As it happens, I do not think that 7 years in prison is a suitable punishment for the crime. If he killed someone whilst driving dangerously, intoxicated or otherwise, I see no reason why being uninsured makes it any worse to be honest. Murder is murder. It is a different case to the other one however, as he is a repeat offender, and has quite clearly flouted the law. I feel the fine should be a lot more, in the thousands. The girl in the other story received a bigger fine for a first offence. ushmush83
  • Score: 0

10:24pm Thu 20 Dec 12

Brummagem Bertie says...

Fines usually are related, in part, to ability to pay, so that there is some degree of similar punishment for similar offences.

For someone who is 20, a £5,000 fine could well be the equivalent of their annual take home pay. For a merchant *anker it might just be the cost of a bottle of wine at the celebratory lunch for their bonus.
Fines usually are related, in part, to ability to pay, so that there is some degree of similar punishment for similar offences. For someone who is 20, a £5,000 fine could well be the equivalent of their annual take home pay. For a merchant *anker it might just be the cost of a bottle of wine at the celebratory lunch for their bonus. Brummagem Bertie
  • Score: 0

11:34pm Thu 20 Dec 12

Guy66 says...

Brummagem Bertie wrote:
Fines usually are related, in part, to ability to pay, so that there is some degree of similar punishment for similar offences.

For someone who is 20, a £5,000 fine could well be the equivalent of their annual take home pay. For a merchant *anker it might just be the cost of a bottle of wine at the celebratory lunch for their bonus.
Nice point but the overall impression of the punishment is that it offers no disincentive to the offender. Maybe he should be fined the cost the normal insurance which could well be £5K in some instances especially considering his previous offences.

If you're prepared to take the risk you should be prepared to face the penalties. Making the punishment fit the offenders ability to pay is wrong in my opinion.
[quote][p][bold]Brummagem Bertie[/bold] wrote: Fines usually are related, in part, to ability to pay, so that there is some degree of similar punishment for similar offences. For someone who is 20, a £5,000 fine could well be the equivalent of their annual take home pay. For a merchant *anker it might just be the cost of a bottle of wine at the celebratory lunch for their bonus.[/p][/quote]Nice point but the overall impression of the punishment is that it offers no disincentive to the offender. Maybe he should be fined the cost the normal insurance which could well be £5K in some instances especially considering his previous offences. If you're prepared to take the risk you should be prepared to face the penalties. Making the punishment fit the offenders ability to pay is wrong in my opinion. Guy66
  • Score: 0

11:37pm Thu 20 Dec 12

Guy66 says...

pronstar wrote:
mayall8808 wrote:
British justice for you, this yob should have got as Guy66 says, Next time a prison sentence of 7 years and a £5000 fine to be paid within 2 years or another 4 years are added to the original sentence...
Plus scrap the car, and any further motoring offence another 3 years no court, hammer all of them who do this and then the message will get through.

These idiots could kill or maime someone for life and its not only the taxpayer who ends up paying but all involved families etc,,
I'm surprised you don't recommend chopping his hands off.

Glad you're not in charge of justice. Do insured drivers never cause fatal accidents?
The point is insured drivers are INSURED so third party can be appropriately compensated for any incident. The law is very clear regarding driving a motor vehicle on our roads - insurance is mandatory. If you chose to flout the law you should be able to face the penalties whatever they are!
[quote][p][bold]pronstar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mayall8808[/bold] wrote: British justice for you, this yob should have got as Guy66 says, Next time a prison sentence of 7 years and a £5000 fine to be paid within 2 years or another 4 years are added to the original sentence... Plus scrap the car, and any further motoring offence another 3 years no court, hammer all of them who do this and then the message will get through. These idiots could kill or maime someone for life and its not only the taxpayer who ends up paying but all involved families etc,,[/p][/quote]I'm surprised you don't recommend chopping his hands off. Glad you're not in charge of justice. Do insured drivers never cause fatal accidents?[/p][/quote]The point is insured drivers are INSURED so third party can be appropriately compensated for any incident. The law is very clear regarding driving a motor vehicle on our roads - insurance is mandatory. If you chose to flout the law you should be able to face the penalties whatever they are! Guy66
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree