Car forfeiture not excessive for two drink related charges
A man who drove when nearly three times the alcohol limit, and on a second occasion nine days later was obstructive and uncooperative in refusing to provide breath specimens, had no basis to challenge as disproportionate the forfeiture of his car as part of the penalty imposed, the Sheriff Appeal Court has held.
Sheriff Principal Craig Scott QC and Sheriff A L Macfadyen refused an appeal against sentence by Chenao Li in which he challenged the order to forfeit his car, said to be worth £15,000, in addition to fines of £750 and £1,200, both having been discounted, and three years' disqualification, for the two offences.
The appellant argued that the issues of public protection that arose were addressed by the lengthy disqualification imposed, and that the sheriff had failed properly to consider the value of the vehicle.
It had also been represented to the sheriff that the appellant came from a wealthy family who had provided the money for the car, and that he could meet a substantial fine. Prior to his conviction the family had made another car available to him.
The sheriff had considered that the two offences within such a short period, the second one committed in breach of bail, demonstrated a “cavalier and irresponsible” attitude and that the forfeiture order could be used to “tailor a sentence that achieves public protection”. In the appeal court's view it was difficult to identify a basis for misdirection.
On the information before the sheriff, she had no basis on which to conclude that forfeiture would be in any way disproportionate. She had proper regard to the cavalier nature of the offending and the appellant's subsequent attitude.
“In our opinion, whilst a forfeiture order can never constitute an absolute safeguard when it comes to protection of the public, that observation does not serve to restrict its use where there are compelling circumstances suggesting that an offender’s conduct was redolent of an exceptional disregard for the consequences of his behaviour”, the court said. “We have concluded that the conduct of the appellant in this case was sufficient to meet that test.”
The judges also disapproved a sentence in Wheatley's Road Traffic Law that it was inappropriate to consider the level of fine imposed, and the value of the vehicle, in deciding whether to order forfeiture.