I have no doubt we have all seen this years anti drink driving message on the TV which has towards the end "you can lose your car", What the message does not say is that really depends on how much the car costs.
Surely a car is even more of a lethal weapon when being driven by a driver under the influence of alcohol, I fail to see that a car costing 25,000 grand is any less of a danger that say a £300 Nissan Micra.
The car should obviously have been taken from him. Given to some charity or a deserving individual (such as me maybe). Seriously I am thinking of the type of motoring school which teaches people how to handle powerful cars. Or where youngsters are taught to drive properly before venturing on to the roads.
The law should be changed to take in to account the value of such a car, maybe a maximum fine should be imposed instead.
Letting a drunk drive a car is akin to giving a matelot a gun.
But if this man had killed somebody whilst he was drink driving, they probably would have taken his car. Judges are a fickle lot.
I must say I preferred QR's &AI's, where if you were found guilty of an offence you received the already laid down punishment. So the judge would just find him guilty and have no say in deciding the punishment.
Drink/drug driving, driving without a licence,tax,insurance, mot or using a mobile phone the owner and driver of the vehicle, unless it has been stolen,should be made to watch the vehicle being destroyed regardless of its value.
'The more money you have the better the law treats you'
What fourm member said was correct. Laws are enacted by government and applied equally to everyone. The fact that someone has a lot of money and can afford representation to prove that their client didn't commit a crime has nothing to do with the actual law itself.