Mag Guidlines Options

[Raggie]

Guys, can I just check if the magistrates guidelines calculator is still valid?

I'm guilty of a 49 in a 40 non motorway.

(Guilty as running daughter to a&e following a 999 call to abulance service who advised very long waits and to get her there myself if I could)

No intention of fighting, guilty as sin, and I would do it again..

Finger is crossed it's 3 points not a ban.

Cheers

[Advertisement]

[Colin_S]

Guys,

The substance was an excess of her medication being used to manage anxiety and depression.......

.....Turns out one side effect of these tablets being taken in excess (we had confirmed at the hospital) is either death, stomach cramps, headaches or vomiting.. we got the later all over the back seat. .....

From first hand experience of someone taking a prescription anti depressant medication OD I know just how dangerous they can be. Fortunately on each occasion they've been discovered in time but with outcomes including days in a coma they're not to be taken lightly. You did the right thing and a NG plea with the support here would be my preferred option.

[mdann52]

Unfortunately, if the call handler advised to drive to hospital yourself or explicitly declined to send an ambulance (were you offered advice over the phone at all?), it's likely to have been triaged as a green (as mentioned above), so it's unlikely any ambulance coming would have been on blues and two's in any case. However, it's probably worth pulling the 999 call as mentioned above, and may be worth seeing if the doctors felt that your actions were appropriate as a court is likely to weigh these higher than your opinions (however, this does rely on being able to email the right people!) - could you give a clue on which region this is?

You were self-evidently using your car as an ambulance (i.e. to convey a sick person to hospital) and compliance with speed limits would have been likely to hinder the prompt conveyance of your daughter to hospital.

I thought there was something in law about ambulances needing to be converted to convey patients, under RVCU in any case? I know that the RRV's (estates used as first response vehicles) tend to rely on section 1A, so I'm not sure this argument would be watertight in this case and may well come down to the bench on the day.

This post has been edited by mdann52: Fri, 6 Apr 2018 - 21:17

[southpaw82]

I thought there was something in law about ambulances needing to be converted to convey patients,

Not under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, no.

[cp8759]

I thought there was something in law about ambulances needing to be converted to convey patients, under RVCU in any case? I know that the RRV's (estates used as first response vehicles) tend to rely on section 1A, so I'm not sure this argument would be watertight in this case and may well come down to the bench on the day.[/s]

As southpaw82 has alluded, that's only relevant to the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994, which requires an ambulance to be, well, an actual ambulance, before it can be licensed as an ambulance (Which means it's exempt from vehicle tax).

As far as I know the OP only needs to show that on the balance of probabilities, observing the speed limits would have been likely to hinder the prompt conveyance of a sick person to hospital, when they were in need of urgent medical attention. There is no requirement to show this beyond all doubt, nor is there any need to show that there was an imminent risk of death of the patient (i.e. you don't need to show that if you got to hospital 5 minutes later, the person would have died).

[The Rookie]

Is it balance of probabilities or a reasonably held belief? I understood it to be the latter as clealry a none professional cannot make a factual judgement but can have a reasonably held belief.

[cp8759]

Is it balance of probabilities or a reasonably held belief? I understood it to be the latter as clealry a none professional cannot make a factual judgement but can have a reasonably held belief.

I suspect it has to be shown that, on the balance of probabilities, a belief was reasonably held.

[666]

Is it balance of probabilities or a reasonably held belief? I understood it to be the latter as clealry a none professional cannot make a factual judgement but can have a reasonably held belief.

Indeed, nor can he be expected to understand gobbledygook about red or green 1,2 or 3. The OP says he was merely told there would be a long wait, and he should get her to A and E himself, not that it was a low priority.

[cp8759]

Is it balance of probabilities or a reasonably held belief? I understood it to be the latter as clealry a none professional cannot make a factual judgement but can have a reasonably held belief.

Indeed, nor can he be expected to understand gobbledygook about red or green 1,2 or 3. The OP says he was merely told there would be a long wait, and he should get her to A and E himself, not that it was a low priority.

+1

[Raggie]

Guys,

Thanks again for all your help.

To conclude I have received a course offer which I'm going to take.

I see there is a potential case to fight it, however gather evedence will require getting the 999 call log and the details from the hospital, my thinking is both services are severely stretched and I don't want to draw on those resources for the sake of a few quid and a couple of hours of my time.

Thanks again

Rags

[cp8759]

That is commendably public spirited of you

[Logician]

You are also of course possibly losing the chance to do a course instead of getting points in relation to a future offence.