Duke of Norfolk

Why are they better than us?

He evidently isnt. He made the same plea to keep his license that many people make - often successfully - and failed.

More fool him. The law has prevailed and I doff my cap at the courts for enforcing it. May it act as a reminder to others who feel they are above the law 👍

Story for those that missed it (me) https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/sep/26/duke-of-norfolk-sentenced-in-private-driving-offence-national-security?amp

Hahahahaha you entitled ****. I agree that plenty of people facing a ban appeal on all sorts of questionable grounds but you can’t help thinking he suspected his involvement in recent events would get him off.

(Awaits some sort of appeal)

Already had nine points from two prior speeding offences (so not speeding 'a bit'), ran a red light then carved in front of a police car whilst on the phone.

🤷‍♂️

He's prime minister material surely?😉

Silly sod. With all that personal wealth I'm sure His Grace could employ a drive for the next few months, then he can use his phone as much as he likes.

"The application for this matter to be in camera is for reasons of national security and because details of this will be provided which have not yet been discussed with His Royal Highness, and not yet discussed with the prime minister and not yet discussed with the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Yep must remember this line next time I get caught on the phone to the wife.

What’s mad is his legal representation probably cost him more than his fine.

Probably ought to buy a car with hands free, or get police outriders.

With all that personal wealth I’m sure His Grace could employ a drive for the next few months

Pretty much what the judge said when throwing out the exceptional hardship argument, it has to be true financial hardship not a bit of mild inconvenience. I'm sure there's plenty of other (probably more capable) people out there who could arrange for the king to sit in a chair whilst someone puts a crown on his head and someone else blows a trumpet.

Because of his licence loss: "The duke, 65, said the withdrawal of his licence could be “very, very serious”, leading to the loss of jobs for up to 20 or 30 employees, such as his tractor driver, which he said “would mortify me”."

His reasoning completely baffles me surely a man worth £100,000,000 still needs a tractor driver. Oh also, apparently impossible to employ enough people to do the driving to get him places.

I’m sure there’s plenty of other (probably more capable) people out there who could arrange for the king to sit in a chair whilst someone puts a crown on his head and someone else blows a trumpet.

Heretic! Do you care nothing for heraldry and tradition? Trumpet dudes should play the Nokia tune.

He organised the most significant events in his lifetime, but didn't organise a driver?

Pretty much what the judge said when throwing out the exceptional hardship argument

Don’t think it was a judge,it’s ‘usually’ 3 upstanding citizens of the public and it’s a pretty much an open and shut case drove over a red light in front of a police car with a phone in his hand.

Would have had the lawyers to see if something wasn’t legally followed right,played the king card and in-camera which as it’s joe public was a 50/50 chance that they could have just made it go away,it wasn’t any of his chums as it wasn’t a judge so just paid a bigger fine and less loss of licence,just a bit of horse trading over the penance.

I’m sure one of the 30 people he employees would be able to run him up the bookies or there’s always Uber. The defence probably didn’t go down well as in reality it would make no difference to him and the fine was probably just the price of a good meal.

He just made himself look a numpty.

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

That’s the giggle,if he’d just wondered in on his own and haggled the fine it would be a footnote in the papers,legal team and national security, the king etc just makes it news.

People get their licences revoked every day for this sort of thing.

8,800 drivers with 12 points or more

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/92095/8800-drivers-uk-roads-12-points

What an entitled arrogant dick.

He already employs over 150 people so it’s not a stretch to get someone to drive him for 6 months. Luckily the court thought the same.

8,800 drivers with 12 points or more

Interesting breakdown of by age groups there - amuses me how often we have threads where forumites complain about reckless young drivers or past-it old drivers when the age group with the highest rate of point scoring is a very STW 49yrs 🙂

He seems like a lovely bloke.

And despite Streisand-effecting himself with his 'national security' schtick, lovely that the magistrates didn't just doff caps and let him off.

His plea on the grounds of financial hardship is a joke.

So glad he got penalised - but not harsh enough for the offence IMHO. Using a phone and not paying attention needs more drastic penalties.

Only skimmed the coverage but now he's lost he's not allowed to drive the world is going to end? Did I get that right?

He organised the most significant events in his lifetime, but didn’t organise a driver?

The weird thing is, I can kind of understand a self-entitled dick thinking he's above things like red lights and speed limits. That's the sort of disconnect from reality I'd expect from someone who refers to his tractor driver (note, not farmer) like it's just a normal thing that everyone has. But unless his BMW is a 3-series from the 1980s there is zero chance that it's not absolutely dripping with Bluetooth connectivity, hands-free operation, voice control... There is absolutely no reason at all for him to have a phone pressed against his face. Even in the event that he doesn't know how to pair it (place your bets), he could surely get one of his lickspittles to do it for him.

I was very, very pleased to see that all of his complaining got him precisely - nowhere!

The law of the land applied appropriately to an entitled twit, made my day did that :o)

Only skimmed the coverage but now he’s lost he’s not allowed to drive the world is going to end? Did I get that right?

Worse than that; not only will the NHS be under more pressure due to the Duke not being allowed out and about to mow down a few filthy peasants with impunity, peasants who will now carry on living and weigh down our national infrastructure even more! But Now He'll also have to employ a pleb of some sort to drive him about, redistributing a portion of his Hard won, precious wealth like this was Soviet Russia or something!

I think the most interesting thing in all of this is that in order to get 6 points and a 6 month ban for using your mobile when driving you have to:

The Earl Marshal, 65, was stopped by police after his BMW cut across the officers' car, going through a red light, the court was told.

The officers drove up to his car and saw he was using his mobile phone. He told the officers he was "in communication with his wife", prosecutor Jonathan Bryan said.

On top of already having 9 points for speeding...

That actually feels a bit lenient to me as the Duke will be back out "Toad of Toad hall-ing" his way about by next summer (or is it 6 months plus however long it takes for the original 9 points to expire?) the whole "Driving Ban" thing confuses me TBH...

His plea on the grounds of financial hardship is a joke.

The plea is Exceptional Hardship.

This crops up quite often on here and it seems to be widely misunderstood. Exceptional Hardship is considered when the loss of licence would be - here's that word again in case we missed it - exceptionally punitive on top of the regular sentencing. For instance: without a licence they'd be sacked and their family could be potentially become homeless; or they're primary carer for someone and have to make regular hospital visits. Generally it involves other people being affected.

Typically when a plea of exceptional hardship is accepted, the retention of licence at 12+ points would be offset with a considerably higher fine instead. It is not "getting away with it" (though of course, a higher fine would be of little consequence to someone of the Duke of Norfolk and Waypal's wealth).

He told the officers he was “in communication with his wife”

Christ, he even talks like a ****.

(or is it 6 months plus however long it takes for the original 9 points to expire?) the whole “Driving Ban” thing confuses me TBH…

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

Christ, he even talks like a ****.

I find it hard to believe that this conversation didn't include 'Do you know who I am?'.

But unless his BMW is a 3-series from the 1980s there is zero chance that it’s not absolutely dripping with Bluetooth connectivity, hands-free operation, voice control

Maybe he borrowed my 3-series from 2009?

Which has none of those things.

Only skimmed the coverage but now he’s lost he’s not allowed to drive the world is going to end? Did I get that right?

I think there'll be a queue somewhere you can join.

Re Tractor driver, I assume its not Ted and the little grey Fergusson working 28hrs a day across a massive estate, the tractor may have Bluetooth as well...

It's a basic story, he was caught, he went to court, his lawyer put up the standard excuse and it was thrown out, this happens across the country on a daily basis, not sure why it's turning into a them and us thread, yes he's rich, he's a Duke, but his legal representative is just doing the generic statement to try and keep his license, no different to Joe Bloggs doing the same because he's self employed, or has a sick mother he has to transport around, or whatever.

He tried his luck and failed, it'd be a different story if he'd succeeded, there's been a few who have won this type of argument who aren't our 'peers' who really shouldn't have.

It’s a basic story,

You missed the bit about him trying to save his blushes by getting the press thrown out of sentencing on the grounds of national security because he's organising a posh parade.

not sure why it’s turning into a them and us thread

Did Mr Fitzalan-Howard use his given name, or his title, ie his privilege? Did he accept his punishment without falling back on pathetic excuses, or try and worm his way out by using his privilege?

It is an extremely peculiar situation, whereby his grace, the Duke of Norfolk, the earl marshal....

In other words, he started it. 😀

You missed the bit about him trying to save his blushes by getting the press thrown out of sentencing on the grounds of national security because he’s organising a posh parade.

That's not quite what happened though, is it.

Did he accept his punishment without falling back on pathetic excuses,

Everyone who gets points makes pathetic excuses of one sort or another.

Did Mr Fitzalan-Howard use his given name, or his title, ie his privilege? Did he accept his punishment without falling back on pathetic excuses, or try and worm his way out by using his privilege?

He's used a well worn excuse, same as those 8800 drivers who are on the roads with over 12 points at present, i've seen it used by self employed people, company owners and carers, he never used his privilege, he used his business interests to try and make the exceptional circumstances argument.

You missed the bit about him trying to save his blushes by getting the press thrown out of sentencing on the grounds of national security because he’s organising a posh parade.

The press already know what happened, when it happened and to whom it happened, there were no blushes to be spared, the fact this is big news just now kind of argues against your point!

That’s not quite what happened though, is it.

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? You are right though, the press was already aware, but on reflection, 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.

'Look how important I am, it's a matter of national security'.

Also, bringing the likely coronation date into a discussion over a likely six-month ban would fuel speculation, rather than prevent it, which seems a little indiscreet.

He evidently isnt. He made the same plea to keep his license that many people make – often successfully – and failed.

This. I'm more reassured that the law dealt with him appropriately.

(He's the uncle to a friend of a my lads, who said social mobility didn't exist 🤣🤣)

And for all the justified criticism of tbe landed gentry, it seems to be the wannabe nouveau rich who are the ones in positions to **** the country over. Don't let them distract you....ERMINE!

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

🙂 🙂