Part 3: Offences concerning use of vehicle
* The guidelines for some of the offences below differentiate between three types of offender when the offence is committed in the course of business: driver, owner-driver and owner-company. For owner-driver, the starting point is the same as for driver; however, the court should consider an uplift of at least 25 per cent.
Maximum fines
A fine must not exceed the statutory limit. Where this is expressed in terms of a 'level', the maxima are:
| Level 1 | £200 |
|---|---|
| Level 2 | £500 |
| Level 3 | £1,000 |
| Level 4 | £2,500 |
| Level 5 | Unlimited |
| Offence | Maximum | Points | Starting point | Special considerations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weight, position or distribution of load or manner in which load secured involving danger of injury (Road Traffic Act 1988, s.40A (d)) |
L4 L5 if goods vehicle – see Part 5 |
3 | B | Must disqualify for at least six months if committed within three years of a previous conviction of the offender under section 40A. If offence committed in course of business: A (driver) A* (owner-driver) B (owner-company) |
| Number of passengers or way carried involving danger of injury (Road Traffic Act 1988, s.40A(c)) |
L4 L5 if goods vehicle – see Part 5 |
3 | B | Must disqualify for at least six months if committed within three years of a previous conviction of the offender under section 40A. If offence committed in course of business: A (driver) A* (owner-driver) B (owner-company) |
| Position or manner in which load secured (not involving danger) (Road Traffic Act 1988, s.42) |
L3 L4 if goods vehicle – see Part 5 |
– | A | |
| Overloading/exceeding axle weight (Road Traffic Act 1988, s.41B) |
L5 L5 if goods vehicle – see Part 5 |
– | A | Starting points apply to cases where the overload is up to and including 10 per cent. Each additional one per cent of overload increases penalty by 10 per cent. Penalty per overloaded axle. If offence committed in course of business: A (driver) A* (owner-driver) B (owner-company) |
| Dangerous parking (Road Traffic Act 1988, s.22) | L3 | 3 | A | |
| Pelican/zebra crossing contravention (Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, s.25(5)) | L3 | 3 | A | |
| Fail to comply with traffic sign (for example, red traffic light, stop sign, double white lines, no entry sign) (Road Traffic Act 1988, s.36) | L3 | 3 | A | |
| Fail to comply with traffic sign (for example, give way sign, keep left sign, temporary signs) (Road Traffic Act 1988, s.36) | L3 | – | A | |
| Fail to comply with police constable directing traffic (Road Traffic Act 1988, s.35) | L3 | 3 | A | |
| Fail to stop when required by police constable (Road Traffic Act 1988, s.163) | L5 (mechanically propelled vehicle) L3 (cycle) | – | B | |
| Use of mobile telephone (Road Traffic Act 1988, s.41D) | L3 |
6 |
A |
|
|
Seat belt offences (Road Traffic Act 1988 ss.14 and 15)
|
L2 | – | A | |
| Fail to use appropriate child car seat (Road traffic Act 1988, s.15) | L2 | – | A |
Band ranges
| Starting point | Range | |
|---|---|---|
| Fine Band A | 50% of relevant weekly income | 25 – 75% of relevant weekly income |
| Fine Band B | 100% of relevant weekly income | 75 – 125% of relevant weekly income |
| Fine Band C | 150% of relevant weekly income | 125 – 175% of relevant weekly income |
| Fine Band D | 250% of relevant weekly income | 200 – 300% of relevant weekly income |
| Fine Band E | 400% of relevant weekly income | 300 – 500% of relevant weekly income |
| Fine Band F | 600% of relevant weekly income | 500 – 700% of relevant weekly income |
- The court should determine the appropriate level of fine in accordance with this guideline and section 125 of the Sentencing Code, which requires that the fine must reflect the seriousness of the offence and that the court must take into account the financial circumstances of the offender.
- Where possible, if a financial penalty is imposed, it should remove any economic benefit the offender has derived through the commission of the offence including:
- avoided costs;
- operating savings;
- any gain made as a direct result of the offence.
- The fine should meet, in a fair and proportionate way, the objectives of punishment, deterrence and the removal of gain derived through the commission of the offence; it should not be cheaper to offend than to comply with the law.
- In considering economic benefit, the court should avoid double recovery.
- Where the means of the offender are limited, priority should be given to compensation (where applicable) over payment of any other financial penalty.
- Where it is not possible to calculate or estimate the economic benefit, the court may wish to draw on information from the enforcing authorities about the general costs of operating within the law.
- When sentencing organisations the fine must be sufficiently substantial to have a real economic impact which will bring home to both management and shareholders the need to comply with the law. The court should ensure that the effect of the fine (particularly if it will result in closure of the business) is proportionate to the gravity of the offence.
- Obtaining financial information: It is for the offender to disclose to the court such data relevant to their financial position as will enable it to assess what they can reasonably afford to pay. If necessary, the court may compel the disclosure of an individual offender’s financial circumstances pursuant to section 35 of the Sentencing Code. In the absence of such disclosure, or where the court is not satisfied that it has been given sufficient reliable information, the court will be entitled to draw reasonable inferences as to the offender’s means from evidence it has heard and from all the circumstances of the case. In setting a fine, the court may conclude that the offender is able to pay any fine imposed unless the offender has supplied financial information to the contrary.