Stupid Court Sentences

[Diasi]

I'll start it with this one, but please add them as they will continue to be made with depressing regularity.

The brain-dead judge in this case seems to have excused this moronic woman on the basis that no one told her not to drive, despite her medication packet warning her about all the possible effects of this type of medication.

And the two year driving ban is ridiculous, it should have been lifetime ban as her arthritis isn't going away & her need for this medication isn't going away.

https://tinyurl.com/5n8z4khz

[Michael Rolls]

incredible!

[Weapons Grade]

I would have thought a charge of manslaughter would have been more appropraiate. She knew she shouldn't have been driving on that kind of powerful medication and will have been told that. I'm surprised that the doctor who prescribed her didn't also inform the DVLA that she was unsafe to drive and they could have told her to surrender her licence while she was on that stuff.

[Diasi]

I would have thought a charge of manslaughter would have been more appropraiate. She knew she shouldn't have been driving on that kind of powerful medication and will have been told that. I'm surprised that the doctor who prescribed her didn't also inform the DVLA that she was unsafe to drive and they could have told her to surrender her licence while she was on that stuff.

In a word 'exactly'.

I hope that the DVLA will have the commonsense to remove her driving licence.

[Alex]

 A two year driving ban for killing a man ?  Unbelievable.

[klondike]

Killing a man while driving illegally.

[Scrumpy]

For every crime committed there is a  'Get out of jail' card..

[Cassandra]

The matter here is as to whether she was specifically forbidden to drive, or if instruction was only advisable, ie. you 'should be cautious when driving etc'. The operative word is 'should'. For example if you are prescribed 'Metformin' for stage 2 Diabetes you are required to advise DVLA, but you can continue to drive.

Obviously therefore she was not driving 'illegally', as she had a licence at the time, which she will continue to retain, until after the ban has expired..

As always the moral dilemma of Statute law v's the public determination of events is somewhat obfuscated by emotion.

[klondike]

Sorry to disagree but a drunk if driving is doing so illegally and so can somebody be on prescription drugs

Tramadol is an opiate and nobody taking it should really be driving. I suspect the defence must have been that she wasn't told which could be true or that she was taking it within the prescribed guidelines and it wasn't affecting her driving which appears probably wasn't true.

[Alex]

If her doctor didn't warn her about Tramadol, then the Pharmacist definitely would have.  Even I know about Tramadol from experiences other people have had, I wouldn't take it myself.

[dextrous63]

If the doctor and/or pharmacist hadn't advised her of the dangers of driving, then are they partially culpable?

If they had advised her, then it would appear that she took scant regard and made no attempt to be "cautious".

[klondike]

I've been prescribed it but couldn't take it. Just a single dose completely stopped me from being able to pee for some reason. It didn't stop that hurting like hell either. I don't recall exactly what advice I was given but I do read the information leaflets on stuff I'm prescribed.

[Cassandra]

Sorry to disagree but a drunk if driving is doing so illegally and so can somebody be on prescription drugs

Tramadol is an opiate and nobody taking it should really be driving. I suspect the defence must have been that she wasn't told which could be true or that she was taking it within the prescribed guidelines and it wasn't affecting her driving which appears probably wasn't true.

Klon, I only quote the law, not an opinion. Drinking is a 'fixed' tenet of law, ie anything over 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres is an offence, mitigation rarely applies.  Drive at 81 and you are technically guilty. Your argument comparing Tramadol to Alcohol is therefore legally sententious and could only be argued as a defence in certain circumstances. For instance,  whilst Tramadol is on the list to specifically preclude the consumer driving a car, there is a 'rider' which states viz;

"If you drive with certain levels of these drugs in your body and have not been
prescribed them, you could be prosecuted."

Importantly the defendant WAS prescribed the drug in question, but secondary to this fact, its very likely the actual recorded level of Tramadol at the time of its extraction (if taken) by sample was inside the limit 'permitted' by statute. Therefore any referral to the Defendant consuming this 'prescriptive' drug by the prosecution would be struck out before the trial commenced at the time of 'Disclosure' to the Judge prior to commencement.

This was a drug prescribed by a physician for medical reasoning, not a socially consumed substance such as Alcohol or Marijuana, a very important terminological difference.

To cause a change (if judged necessary) in this as in any legislation would therefore necessitate a full Judicial review of the Statute.

Being both an advocate and a Judge one is governed as we all are by statute, but in our case without emotive circumstance as an accompaniment.

[klondike]

Of course we don't have access to presented evidence so can't see the reason but as you say there would have been one. 

All I was saying was that having a licence of itself doesn't mean somebody is driving legally which I thought your post suggested.

[dextrous63]

Legal limit or not, I repeat my point that the driver had failed to be cautious whilst driving with any residual effect of the medication .