Are we really meant to believe this old codger really organised the funeral and will organise the coronation? I suspect most of the organising was done and will be done by the Civil Service, Foreign Office, Police, Armed Services and security services. At best his role will be some title and occasional call to keep him happy.

Let’s await the appeal held by an influenceable judge rather than a magistrate

His appeal was thrown out, it’s a basic driving ban, not a life sentence. He tried his arm, he failed, end off, he lost the appeal for a closed court as well, the flip side of the argument is if he hadn’t been the chief organiser for the Queen’s funeral and the upcoming coronation, would the press be en masse in attendance at the magistrates court?

The pub should sue him for bringing their name into disrepute.

https://www.beerintheevening.com/pubs/s/27/27735/Duke_of_Norfolk/Brighton

His appeal was thrown out,

As a technical point this wasn’t an appeal.  An exceptional hardship hearing is not an appeal, it is essentially an elaborate plea in mitigation.  He technically could appeal either to Crown Court (for 2 new mag + CC judge to hear the case again) or to High Court (for magistrates to state a case and explain their logic in law).

Let’s await the appeal held by an influenceable judge rather than a magistrate

I’d be surprised if he goes to the inevitable expense of an appeal.  His lawyer should be telling him it would be a waste of time.  I am 100% confident that if he does appeal no member of the paid judiciary in this country is influenceable over a matter like this.  There are many ways judges in the UK can be flawed – granting an appeal in a very public case with no good basis in law is more likely to be career ending than opportunity improving, even if he is a key player in the aristocracy.

You have to ask whether the magistrates really required to hear sensitive information about the coronation plans in order to form a view on sentence?

I too was surprised at this.  Obviously, we don’t know what was actually said in camera but a typical exceptional hardship hearing is less than an hour long, and involves a few witnesses and some paperwork to add credibility to the story being told.  I can’t work out what level of detail would need to be shared with the bench.

I would suggest that the ‘name-dropping’ nature of the in camera request was probably more aimed at indirectly swaying the bench and reducing the likelihood of a ban.

Possibly – although I suspect it may actually have the opposite effect!  All it would seem to do is highlight the absurdity that a person in his position was unable to employ a driver for 6 months.

You are right though, the press was already aware,

I’ve always been fascinated by how the press are aware when there is a celebrity case.  Yes all cases are held in public, and lists are published so if “David Beckham” appears on the list a thorough local press rep might spot it and dig to see if it is the David Beckham, but Edward Fitzalan-Howard?  How does anyone spot that name and realise “who” he is?

A lad in my home town killed a cyclist on a local dual carriage way (A31 where they do time trials for those that know), while using his phone. It turned out he has 15 points on his licence for using his phone while driving but pleaded (whined like a biatch) in court that he needed his licence for work each time.
He got 9 years.
Here’s the thing. His family appealed (whined like biatches) stating that he should not have been driving and blamed the courts for not banning him sooner. Their argument, if the courts had done their job he wouldn’t be in prison.

Not a single moment of either the driver or his family taking responsibility for the fact that maybe he should put his phone down while driving.

This sense of entitlement does not come from or about class or how rich you are, its about who raised your arse and who taught you right from wrong.

This sense of entitlement does not come from or about class or how rich you are, its about who raised your arse and who taught you right from wrong.

Very true. Ronnie Pickering didn’t lead the swearing in of King Charles, but the attitude is the same.

I’ve always been fascinated by how the press are aware when there is a celebrity case. Yes all cases are held in public, and lists are published so if “David Beckham” appears on the list a thorough local press rep might spot it and dig to see if it is the David Beckham, but Edward Fitzalan-Howard? How does anyone spot that name and realise “who” he is?

In my days as a local hack, if I was perusing the lists and spotted a vaguely exotic name like that, I’d probably try and find out if he was somebody interesting. Or, in modern parlance, Google him. 🙂 Would probably be expecting a company director rather than a Duke, though.

Central London/Westminster Mags might well have a permanent Press Association reporter.

Or his gardener might have tipped them off.

@JefWachowchow That’s a really good point, I now realise that it’s not just about entitlement from your birth connections, although that was the original point of my thread, it’s quite often about the depths of your pockets or sheer brass neck. Two years ago I had a speeding ticket, 33 in a 30. I was mortified, did my course and I’m even more careful!

His licence will be revoked for six months. It will come back clean, the points are considered spent with the disqualification.

Hang on, so he’s essentially gotten off lighter (a shorter time without being allowed to drive his Brum car) than if they’d just applied 6 points?

I find that concerning TBH.

Hang on, so he’s essentially gotten off lighter (a shorter time without being allowed to drive his Brum car) than if they’d just applied 6 points?

I find that concerning TBH.

?? They did just apply 6 points.  Therefore he tots up, gets a 6 month ban and then can apply for his license back.  It will come back clean – any disqualification over 56 days always comes back with a clean license.  That is the law, its been that way since at least 1988.  Having not found there was exceptional hardship exactly the same rule applies as if he has just taken the 6 points on the chin in the first place.  There are many aspects of the “points system” which don’t really make sense, and probably relate to a simpler time when paper records drove the process.

People should stop calling it “license revoked” – you can get your license revoked for medical reasons, for getting 6 points in first 2 yrs, or in the days when paper licenses were used not sending it off to get the points added; these are administrative processes where you can often sort if out with some forms. His license has not been revoked – he has been disqualified from holding or obtaining a license.  Driving whilst disqualified is treated much more seriously by the courts than driving with a revoked license.

Yeah, but no, but…
Disqualified under “totting up” carries code TT99 and will stay with a licence record for 4 years.
A driver doesn’t have valid penalty points (pp) but not a “clean” licence record. You’d start at zero on getting your licence back, add 3pp for speeding, another 3pp for a tyre, etc and be considered again for “totting up” at a total of 12pp
The original “totting up” TT99 can be considered by the Court from the date of that disqualification for four years, as well as by insurance companies for as long as their T&Cs specify
You might also have to pass a driving test/extended driving test if the Court specifies that on disqualification
Drink-drive remains on your licence record for 11 years

You’ll forgive my ignorance of the whole “driving ban” thing, I’ve managed to avoid direct experience of such things (so virtuous I know).

I had assumed a “ban” lasted as long as it took for enough points to be spent, otherwise what’s the point?

How terrible a driver do you need to demonstrate yourself to be in order to get a meaningful ban?

The point of points is to make you think and to keep that thought process going for at least 3 years (10 years for drink-related)
The disqualification is the next level “if you can’t think about that, consider this” and its implications that last a lot longer with family life, employment, insurance, etc
Imprisonment is the final option
Causing death by dangerous driving carries a compulsory minimum disqualification of 5 years for context

Now I’m wondering what happens to the points here in Spain, where we have a similar system. What does seem to be different is that there’s a compulsory retest if you lose you license, there’s (AFAIK) no concept of “revoked” vs. “disqualified”.

I had assumed a “ban” lasted as long as it took for enough points to be spent, otherwise what’s the point?

Spent is another term the criminal fraternity probably understand better than the general public – however since points count for totting up for 3 yrs and stay on license for 4 yrs, you didn’t really think someone getting 12 points got a 3 or 4 year ban did you?

How terrible a driver do you need to demonstrate yourself to be in order to get a meaningful ban?

Define meaningful?  Lots of people try really hard not to get the 6 month ban under the current rules so it suggests to me that most people do find 6 months meaningful.  In fact even the threat of a 4-8 week ban will get most people scrabbling to find some reason to justify why that shouldn’t happen to them.

If someone gets “totted twice”, ie. they get a six month ban, then with their clean license get another 12 points in three years the ban is 12 months.  And of course, the magistrates can apply a discretionary disqualification outright (usually either because the magnitude of the original offence is huge, say 65 mph past a school in a 20 limit, or because they are repeat offenders even if they don’t fall in the totting up rules, say a 4th no insurance in 10 years).

Its not actually that hard to get 12 points.  Mobile phone 6pts.  No insurance 6-8 pts.  Speeding 3-6pts.  Parking on zig-zag 3pts.  Bald tyre 3pts.  Faulty brake light 3pts.  Careless driving 3-9pts. Ignoring/missing a letter asking who was driving 6pts.  In E&W some offences do have the option of courses to avoid points so that does make it harder, and in Scotland an early guilty plea reduces points (within the range permitted) but I’m not sure it actually works how it was designed – there are lots of people with dozens of driving offences over a long period who clearly had little regard for road safety but have never actually hit 12 and then someone can trip over paperwork and get themselves in proper bother without even knowing/trying.

The whole Royal family thing is utter baloney at this point.

Driving whilst disqualified is treated much more seriously by the courts than driving with a revoked license.

Dunno, what is it an extra 2 years disqualification if you actually flip your car after a booze and drugs sess whilst driving whilst disqualified 🙂

and without insurance as a cherry on the top.

points count for totting up for 3 yrs and stay on license for 4 yrs

And insurance companies often ask “… in the last five years.” I wonder idly what would happen if you had points from 4.5 years ago and lied – could they find out about points removed 4 years ago?

Its not actually that hard to get 12 points.

It happened to me like 25 years ago. Two 3-point speeding tickets in a three year period, then I got 6 points for driving without insurance because unbeknown to me the insurer had started my insurance policy at noon and I got pulled over 20 minutes prior. Six month disqualification and a £90 fine.

Causing death by dangerous driving carries a compulsory minimum disqualification of 5 years for context

I’m assuming that’s if people manage to actually prove/convict that the driving was dangerous and not that [“”the sun was in my eyes”, “They came out of nowhere”, “They cycled into me”, “They stepped out into the road faster than I could react”], right?

Dunno, what is it an extra 2 years disqualification if you actually flip your car after a booze and drugs sess whilst driving whilst disqualified

And prison, the disqualification is waiting to start from when you get out

I’m assuming that’s if people manage to actually prove/convict that the driving was dangerous…

That’s a whole other thread 🙂

And prison, the disqualification is waiting to start from when you get out

Not necessarily, Katie Price got a 16 weeks suspended sentence for that very act.

“You appear to think you are above the law,” she told Price, adding that the star has one of the worst driving records she has ever seen and was lucky not to be going to jail.

The judge said she was not able to sentence the star to prison, “even though you deserve it”.

Price was also sentenced to 100 hours of unpaid work and 20 sessions of rehabilitation work with probation. There was no separate penalty for driving without insurance.

Not necessarily, Katie Price got a 16 weeks suspended sentence for that very act

That’s a whole other thread

🙂 🙂