Question for you lads and info as well if poss.
A driver who works for a mate of mine has been done for using phone while driving.He got £30 00 fine and 3 pts.He has had a letter requiring him to go in front of traffic commissioner on 19/5/08.He has paid the fine first then contacted the union.The union say they cant help him because by paying the fine he has admitted committing the offence.Has anyone had experience of going before the commition for this offence and have any idea of what further punishment he might get.Its his 1st offence.
Thanks i,ll be grateful for any info you can supply.
dafdave:
Question for you lads and info as well if poss.
A driver who works for a mate of mine has been done for using phone while driving.He got £30 00 fine and 3 pts.He has had a letter requiring him to go in front of traffic commissioner on 19/5/08.He has paid the fine first then contacted the union.The union say they cant help him because by paying the fine he has admitted committing the offence.Has anyone had experience of going before the commition for this offence and have any idea of what further punishment he might get.Its his 1st offence.
Thanks i,ll be grateful for any info you can supply.
Regards Dave.
never happened to me, but it is becoming a more common place occurance.
Unlike the the average motorist, we as professional drivers have a vocational licence, and as such we may be held accountable to the TC. publicised suspensions of vocational licences have ranged from 2 weeks to 3 months.
dafdave:
Question for you lads and info as well if poss.
A driver who works for a mate of mine has been done for using phone while driving.
Im asuming that your mate had a company policy stating that mobile phones shouldnt be used whilst driving.
Im also guessing that the TC will be bending his ear too, if he didnt have this policy in place, and for allowing the driver to do it. As it might reflect on the companies O licence record
so if i was your mate, I`d be seriously considering sacking the driver, or at least giving them a final written warning
He paid the initial fine, got called up and wasn’t suspended (pleaded hardship) but was given a further fine.
Se he might get off lightly… still doesn’t excuse the behavior.
I saw him doing it again the other day actually, gave him an ear bending about it but he doesn’t listen.
He might be my mate but to be honest, I hope he gets caught again as it needs stopping, before he has an accident.
Quite honestly I find this extremely disturbing - if this guy has been punished by the police then the traffic nazis have no business punishing him again.
If I were him I would consider taking his case to a good lawyer as it is completely unfair for anyone to be done twice for the same offence - irregardless of whether a licence is “vocational” or otherwise.
This is a classic case of “double jeopardy” and should be fought vigorously.
Double jeopardy law which prevents people being tried for the same crime twice was scrapped in England and Wales in 2005.
Traffic Commisioners are a law unto themselves anyway - judge and jury. They will be considering not the particular offence, which has already been dealt with, but with a persons suitabliity to hold a vocational licence.
It is unbeleivable to me that so many truck drivers still talk on their mobile phones without using handsfree, when handsfree/bluetooth kits are so cheap.
it is my understanding that double jeopardy laws were only scrapped for certain extremely serious offences (murder, ■■■■, child abuse etc…) for which a defendant had already been tried and accquitted and then new eveidence had come to light which could very likely lead to a conviction.
Irregardless of what the traffic nazis wish to discuss, any penalty imposed by them subsequent to a conviction is clearly unfair and a gross misuse of power. More so given that the chief ■■■■ will be judge, jury and executioner.
This sort of bullying holier than thou interference from civil servants needs to be challenged in the strongest possible way - via the european courts if neccesary.
Hombre:
it is completely unfair for anyone to be done twice for the same offence
It could be argued that he isn’t being ‘done’ for the same offence twice.
For using his phone while driving he was fined and had points put on his licence.
He will be going in front of the TC for the failure of his professional standards.
It is common practice in other careers; if a doctor was convicted of, for example, ■■■■, he would also be struck-off the medical register; when a soldier is convicted of drink-driving by a civil court he also the charged for ‘Bringing the Army into Disrepute’.
People have, in times past, tried and failed to argue that they are being punished twice for the same crime. The truth is that the same crime may trigger the different ‘punishments’ but they are actually for, and given out by, different organisations.
I wonder how many of the previous posters who seem to be up in arms that “Professional Drivers” are being punished by the TC. admit to actually using a non hands free phone while driving?
I for 1 don`t, but will admit to making my displeasure know to any driver I see driving down the road doing so, usually by sounding my horn
peirre:
I wonder how many of the previous posters who seem to be up in arms that “Professional Drivers” are being punished by the TC. admit to actually using a non hands free phone while driving?
I for 1 don`t, but will admit to making my displeasure know to any driver I see driving down the road doing so, usually by sounding my horn
I’m with you on that one peirre. the amount of times i have made the phone gesture with my hand and then shook my head to them is unbelievable. a lot of them do get embarresed and hang up (or at least seem to)
as has been mentioned before especially with the amount of bluetooth items on the market now at quite cheap prices (cheaper than losing your licence anyway) why not spend 30-40 quid on a decent one and save yourself a hell of a lot of hassle.
we are meant to be ‘proffesional’ drivers. why dont some people act like that?
peirre:
I wonder how many of the previous posters who seem to be up in arms that “Professional Drivers” are being punished by the TC. admit to actually using a non hands free phone while driving?
I for 1 don`t, but will admit to making my displeasure know to any driver I see driving down the road doing so, usually by sounding my horn
Or better still - as I sit on the n/s - pull up at lights next to a trucker in an artic texting, wind down window, and yell ‘PHONE’ - the look and shock on the driver’s face as he threw the mobile across the cab was a picture
The double jeopardy ruling is still absent from the Armed Forces, as far as I know
Get found guilty(or not guilty) in a civilian court, and then get charged by the Armed Forces, in my knowledge the Army under Section 69, conduct prejudicial to the upkeep of good order and discipline, in that you appeared in a civilian court and was found guilty of an offence, so bringing the Army into disrepute.
This will be the same scenario for appearing in front of the TC, you have brought the haulage industry into disrepute by appearing in a civil court.
Therefore, not the same offence.
Having being charged a couple of times under Section 69 The Army Act 1969 for various offences I understand what its all about.
What I do not understand is under which laws in the UK you can be charged twice for the same offence. Firstly by a magistrates court with the option of pleading not guilty and being able to present your case - possibly even in a Crown Court. Then secondly by some civil servant with a bee in their bonnet and an attitude which comes from being given inordinate amounts of power.
interesting point about this double whammy thing…
If you punch someone at work, you get done by the courts AND you lose your job - is that being punished twice as well
Hombre:
Firstly by a magistrates court with the option of pleading not guilty and being able to present your case - possibly even in a Crown Court. Then secondly by some civil servant with a bee in their bonnet and an attitude which comes from being given inordinate amounts of power.
The TC doesn’t see you until after you have been done/convicted/etc. If you were found ‘not guilty’ etc then the TC wouldn’t be seeing you.
ROG:
interesting point about this double whammy thing…
If you punch someone at work, you get done by the courts AND you lose your job - is that being punished twice as well
Not quite the same thing - punching a workmate is gross misconduct under most companies rules and an employer can choose who they do and do not employ.
Government departments including traffic commissioners are simply civil servants, the simple fact that the UK government has bestowed power upon them which enables them to act as judge, jury and executuoner is totally at odds with the concept of natural justice.
ROG:
interesting point about this double whammy thing…
If you punch someone at work, you get done by the courts AND you lose your job - is that being punished twice as well
Not quite the same thing - punching a workmate is gross misconduct under most companies rules and an employer can choose who they do and do not employ.
Could it not be argued that the TC is is following gross misconduct under the terms/ethos of the upgraded licence
I cant see how as the TC is not the employer - simply a government administrator.
Here in Spain if you get done by the Police for a minor traffic offence then thats the end of the story, there is no interfering power crazed busybody who demands their four pennorth as well, so why in the UK?
As for the terms or ethos of the “upgraded” licence i wasnt aware there were any. When i took my HGV 1 nearly thirty years ago you did the course, sat the test and passed or failed. There were no additional terms and conditions other than passing a medical every three years.
have a vocational licence, and as such we may be held accountable to the TC. publicised suspensions of vocational licences have ranged from 2 weeks to 3 months.
