Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Around 83% of conveyancers predict Brexit will significantly affect the UK property market in 2017. They place Brexit as one of the top three factors to have a significant influence on the UK property market in 2017, with almost half (48%) putting it first, according to new research released from Groundsure. Changes to Stamp Duty Land Tax ranked second on the list, followed by a shortage of housing stock.
Other significant factors predicted to influence property buying in 2017 include the election of Donald Trump, increasing consumer demand for digital solutions, continued uncertainty around the HS2 rail route and VAT introduction on CON29 searches.
Anecdotally, respondents spoke of “a possible rise in interest rates” and “cyclical economic uncertainty” as further additional issues that are likely to have an impact in the year ahead.
Dan Montagnani, Managing Director at Groundsure said: “The past year has been one of political and economic turbulence, with the UK witnessing some major changes, many of which will have a potential impact on the conveyancing trade. Whilst Brexit appears to have had a negative impact on house prices, particularly in London, monthly statistics do not appear to support the theory that this has adversely impacted transaction volumes. However, transaction volumes have been consistently below expectations since April 2016 and I believe this is due to Stamp Duty Land Tax changes that came into effect at that time.
“Adjustments in the value of the pound and weaker London property prices, of course, make property more attractive to overseas investors and this may be a contributory factor for the lack of evidence in overall transaction volume decrease since Brexit,” added Montagnani.
(Source: Groundsure)
The Prince Edward Island Office of the Superintendent of Securities and the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC) have announced that IIROC has been granted new legal powers to strengthen its discipline of wrongdoers - important steps in enhancing consumer protection in the province.
Through an authorization order, the Superintendent has given IIROC the authority to collect fines against individuals it has disciplined directly through the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island. IIROC will also now be able to improve the cooperation of witnesses and evidence-gathering for its disciplinary hearings, which will enable IIROC to obtain the best evidence to prosecute wrongdoers.
With this announcement, PEI joins Alberta and Quebec as provinces that have granted IIROC the ability to collect disciplinary fines directly through the courts. This new authority will enable IIROC to more efficiently and effectively collect fines from individuals it has sanctioned for breaking its rules of conduct and ethics. Alberta has also granted IIROC the authority to require the cooperation of witnesses at IIROC hearings held in that province.
Previously, IIROC required individual approval from the Superintendent of Securities for each individual case before it could file its enforcement decisions with the Supreme Court of PEI in order to collect fines against disciplined individuals who try to evade payment. The majority of IIROC prosecutions involve unsuitable investment recommendations which often result in financial loss to investors, many of which are seniors and/or vulnerable clients.
"Prince Edward Island is pleased to collaborate with IIROC to enhance investor protection to help to foster confidence in our capital markets and economy," said Steve Dowling, PEI Superintendent of Securities. "We will continue to work to ensure those operating in financial services meet the highest established standards."
"We commend the Provincial Government and the PEI Superintendent of Securities for demonstrating leadership by providing IIROC with important tools that strengthen our enforcement abilities and sending a strong deterrent message to potential wrongdoers. Our collaboration means that IIROC can be a more effective public interest regulator that holds wrongdoers accountable when they harm investors," said IIROC President and CEO, Andrew Kriegler.
Last year, IIROC levied over $4.5 million against firms and individuals nationally, but collected less than 20 per cent of fines against individuals. There is approximately $30 million in unpaid fines against individuals owing to IIROC, dating back to 2008.
Monies collected by IIROC can only be used for initiatives that further investor protection, promote investor education and support financial literacy.
In provinces where provincial governments have already given IIROC the ability under their securities legislation to enforce penalties through the courts, such as Quebec and Alberta, IIROC's collection rates are significantly higher than the national collection rate.
"IIROC continues to encourage provincial and territorial governments across the country to make legislative changes that will strengthen our ability to protect investors - Canadian investors and our capital markets deserve nothing less," added Kriegler.
(Source: Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada)
The Council of the EU should codify the standard of proof it applies to sanctions listings as soon as possible. This is just one of the conclusions of the House of Lords EU Justice Sub-Committee which publishes its report into the legality of EU sanctions.
The Committee conducted a short inquiry into the EU sanctions-listing process in order to establish the reasons for the high number of EU sanctions cases being struck down by the EU courts, and to investigate what measures were being taken to address this.
The Committee’s key recommendations include:
Where the Council has been unable to offer evidence supporting the statement of reasons for a listing, the report concludes that the EU courts have been right to annul the listing.
It is incumbent on the EU to ensure that it has sufficiently robust procedures to allow the EU courts to assess confidential evidence underpinning sanctions listings.
The Council should urgently reduce the time taken to respond to correspondence from targeted individuals and companies, especially when mistaken identity is alleged.
The Government and Council should consider an Ombudsperson for EU sanctions, similar to the role of the UN Ombudsperson for the Al Qaida Sanctions Committee, to improve the fairness of the sanctions listing procedure.
The Government should provide open-source information justifying sanctions listings to select committees to allow Parliament to carry out its vital scrutiny role more effectively.
The UK should align itself with EU sanctions post-Brexit, and national legislation to achieve this must be put in place.
Committee Chairman, Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws, said: “Sanctions are an important tool of foreign policy, which seek to influence through indirect means the behaviour of an offending State or organisation by impacting on their economy. But sanctions should also respect the due process rights of those who are sanctioned, particularly their right to an effective remedy.
“The Committee has seen on numerous occasions that there is a tension between these two principles, and the large number of listings that have been annulled by the General Court to date attests to this difficulty.
“The Council should be less willing to relist on amended grounds those individuals and companies who have succeeded in having their original listings struck down by the EU courts for lack of evidence. We are concerned that this practice gives rise to a perception of injustice, namely that the judgments of the EU courts are of no consequence because further sanctions are imposed before they come into effect.
“The sanctions listing process has improved considerably and the UK has led in achieving this. In the past, targeted individuals or companies were neither informed that they had been listed nor provided with a statement of reasons for the listing. However, there is much more to be done to make the process fairer. We hope the Government and the Council of the EU will take action following our recommendations.”
(Source: House of Lords)
A national trade association representing brewers, beer importers, and industry suppliers, The Beer Institute, has released the following statement lauding the introduction of the Craft Beverage Modernization and Tax Reform Act (S.236/H.R. 747) in both the US Senate by Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Roy Blunt (R-MO) and the US House of Representatives by Representatives Erik Paulsen (R-MN) and Ron Kind (D-WI). The comprehensive bill provides fair and equitable reform of the federal excise tax on beer. If enacted, the Craft Beverage Modernization and Tax Reform Act will provide tax relief to all brewers and beer importers.
"We applaud Senators Wyden and Blunt and Representatives Paulsen and Kind as well as the Senate and House cosponsors from both sides of the aisle for their leadership in supporting America's brewers and beer importers," said Jim McGreevy, President and CEO of the Beer Institute. "The Craft Beverage Modernization and Tax Reform Act is commonsense legislation that will keep America's beer industry dynamic and growing. Today, the beer industry supports more than 1.75 million US jobs and generates nearly $253 billion in economic activity, which is equal to about 1.5 percent of the US GDP."
Mirroring the beer provisions of the Craft Beverage Modernization and Tax Reform Act from the 114th Congress (S. 1562/H.R 2903), which garnered 52 bipartisan cosponsors in the US Senate and 289 Republicans and Democratic cosponsors in the House of Representatives, this legislation:
Other original cosponsors of the Craft Beverage Modernization and Tax Reform Act in the Senate include Senators Tammy Baldwin (R-WI), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Tom Carper (D-DE), Bob Casey (D-PA), Cory Gardner (R-CO), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Rob Portman (R-OH), Pat Roberts (R-KS), and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI).
Representatives Mark Amodei (R-NV), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Tom Emmer (R-MN), Mike Kelly (R-PA), Patrick McHenry (R-NC), Dan Newhouse (R-WA), Chellie Pingree (D-ME), David Reichert (R-WA), Mike Thompson (R-WA), and Pat Tiberi (R-OH) also joined as original cosponsors in the House of Representatives.
(Source: Beer Institute)
Federal and provincial Ministers, the Honourable Catherine McKenna, the Honourable John Rustad, the Honourable Mary Polak, with Mayor John Helin of the Lax Kw'alaams Band and Harold Leighton, Chief Councillor of the Metlakatla First Nation, recently announced an Agreement on Environmental Monitoring of the proposed Pacific NorthWest LNG Project. This is the first Agreement of its kind between the Government of Canada, the Government of British Columbia, the Lax Kw'alaams Band and the Metlakatla First Nation.
The Government of Canada says it is committed to a renewed nation-to-nation relationship with Indigenous peoples based on recognition, rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership.
Through this historic agreement, First Nations will work directly with provincial and federal authorities as part of a committee to ensure the Pacific NorthWest LNG Project is developed in the most environmentally sustainable way possible.
The committee will enable enhanced environmental oversight of the Pacific NorthWest LNG Project and the active engagement of local First Nations. It will foster information-sharing and continuous environmental monitoring and oversight. It will also enable the Lax Kw'alaams Band and Metlakatla First Nation to provide input into the project's environmental management plans and follow-up programs.
The committee is the product of input and feedback from Indigenous peoples regarding their desire to play an active role in monitoring the project on an ongoing basis. It is an example of the successful application of the Interim Approach and Principles for environmental assessments, which include a commitment to restoring robust oversight and meaningful consultations and engagement with Indigenous peoples.
This cooperative agreement sets out the principles, structure, and roles and responsibilities of an Environmental Monitoring Committee for the Pacific NorthWest LNG Project, in British Columbia.
The Pacific NorthWest LNG Project received federal environmental assessment approval in September 2016, subject to over 190 legally-binding conditions to be fulfilled by the proponent throughout the life of the project. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and BC Environmental Assessment Office remain responsible for ensuring ongoing compliance with their respective legally-binding conditions for the project.
The Honourable Catherine McKenna, Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Canada, said: "The idea to create this committee is based on input received from Indigenous peoples throughout the environmental assessment process to ensure protection of the environment through ongoing project monitoring and oversight. The committee encourages ongoing dialogue and collaboration with Indigenous peoples, which is at the core of our government's reconciliation commitment."
Mayor John Helin, Lax Kw'alaams Band, said: "We have always maintained the view that the environment is most important to us and with this agreement in place, it will help protect the fish, waters and lands in our traditional territory. Any development can only take place if the necessary environmental protections are in place and this is an important step in that direction."
Harold Leighton, Chief Councillor, Metlakatla First Nation, said: "Working together, we can ensure the safeguards are in place and LNG development respects the environmental values that are a priority for the Metlakatla First Nation."
The Honourable John Rustad, Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, British Colombia, said: "This agreement represents a stronger, collaborative way to safeguard the environment. Through this agreement, and working directly with the First Nations, we have put in place a management structure that will ensure the Pacific NorthWest LNG Project meets the highest possible environmental standards and adheres to both provincial and federal regulatory requirements."
The Honourable Mary Polak, Minister of Environment, British Colombia, said: "Having both provincial and federal governments and First Nations leading this committee not only provides for stronger environmental protection, it also increases confidence in the rigour of the environmental oversight. The end result is a better project."
(Source: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency)
Two thirds of Canadian employees have experienced an organizational change at their current workplace; among them 40% say it negatively affected their health and well-being
New research by Morneau Shepell has found that organizational changes have led to employees taking sick leave from work. In a recent survey of employees and employers across Canada, nearly half (46%) of employees have taken time off work and/or noticed other employees take more time off work following workplace changes.
The survey found that two thirds (66%) of respondents have experienced at least one organizational change with their current employer - this included team restructuring (39%), downsizing/layoffs (35%), job re-design (35%), re-design of the physical office space (29%) and mergers (15%).
Of those employees who have experienced a change, 43% said it had a negative impact on their perception of the company, 40% said it negatively affected their health and well-being and 30% indicated that it impacted their job performance. Across the country, Alberta employees experienced the most workplace changes, with nearly three quarters (74%) facing at least one workplace change with their current employer during the time of their employment.
"We have found that among the types of organizational changes, job re-design has the strongest correlation to sick leave for both physical and mental health," said Alan Torrie, President and CEO, Morneau Shepell. "This type of change sometimes gets less focus than things like mergers, but it is clearly important to the day-to-day experience of employees."
"The reality is that organizational change is more likely to increase than decrease over time. With technology advances, new business models and global economic forces, change is the new normal," Torrie explained. "With this, it is important for organizations to understand the impact on people and consider the best way to support their workforce through on-going change."
Morneau Shepell also assessed workplace mental health issues in general and found that the most prevalent conditions remain depression and anxiety, with 31% and 28% of employee respondents having indicated a current or past mental health condition, respectively.
Additionally, sick leave for mental health concerns is more than two times as likely for employees age 30 and under, compared to the average likelihood of employees older than age 30. "On the positive side, many employees are turning to their co-workers as an important source for social support. We found that 61% of employee respondents indicated their co-workers had a positive impact on their mental well-being," said Stephen Liptrap, Chief Operating Officer, Morneau Shepell. "Employer support and resources, such as an employee and family assistance program, were also noted as valuable by employees."
Through its research, Morneau Shepell found that 75% of all respondents indicated work culture as the most important issue to address regarding mental health in the workplace. This issue ranked above the importance of employees' willingness to get help (71%), employees' coping skills and resilience (70%), reducing stigma among employees (65%), reducing stigma among managers (65%) and concerns about employees returning from disability leave (62%).
"We know that employees who report a positive work culture are less likely to have taken mental health sick leave in the past two years," said Paula Allen, Vice President, Research and Integrative Solutions. "We also found that employees were less likely to indicate negative impact to their job performance, view of the company or their own health and well-being after an organizational change when they report a positive and supporting work culture."
That said, among people managers, nearly half (47%) indicated negative workplace culture as the top issue in the workplace. This issue was ranked higher than absenteeism (36%), presenteeism (32%) or employee engagement (21%). While the national average is 47%, the number of people managers across the country that identified negative workplace culture as the top issue varies with 58% in Alberta, 49% in British Columbia, the territories and Ontario, 48% in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, 47% in the Atlantic and 36% in Quebec.
(Source: Morneau Shepell)
Florida Petroleum Council (FPC) Executive Director David Mica has said that state Senator Dana Young's proposed legislation to ban oil and natural gas production is out-of-step with Florida consumers and families who are seeing the economic benefits of domestic energy development.
"Our industry has a long history of providing environmental and economic benefits," said Mica. "The United States is the leading producer of oil, natural gas and refined product in the world, and the decades-old technique of hydraulic fracturing has led to lower energy costs for consumers and improvements in the environment. Senator Dana Young's proposed ban could undermine the benefits that Florida families and consumers are seeing today."
Clean-burning natural gas has driven emissions in the US power sector to 25-year lows and, according to IHS, American households have an extra $1,337 per year in the bank due to abundant and affordable natural gas. In addition, AAA reports that American drivers saved as much as $550 in transportation fuel costs. Domestic energy development is also paying off for American manufacturers, whose electricity costs are 30-50 percent lower than those of foreign competitors.
In December 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency finalized its six-year, multi-million dollar, national study of hydraulic fracturing and did not find evidence that the process leads to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States. Adding to the extensive research, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection contracted its own independent study to evaluate the impacts to the aquifer in Collier County following a hydraulic fracturing operation. After extensive water testing, the December 2014 report concluded there were no indications of fluids injected at the well in the aquifer.
"The technology has been proven safe, and Florida is realizing the economic and environmental benefits of its use," said Mica. "Thanks in part to the increased use of domestic natural gas, ozone concentrations in the air have dropped by 17 percent since 2000, all of which makes the United States not just an energy superpower, but also a leader in reducing global emissions. Let's not move backwards when the gains of energy security are important for Florida families."
FPC is a division of API, which represents all segments of America's oil and natural gas industry. Its more than 625 members produce, process, and distribute most of the nation's energy. The industry also supports 9.8 million US jobs and 8 percent of the US economy.
(Source: American Petroleum Institute)
China is the country where businesses face the most potent combination of corruption risk and difficulty in obtaining a clear picture of the local business environment, followed by Iraq and then Nigeria. This is according to new analysis from global risk consultancy The Risk Advisory Group which found that companies can expect to encounter more corruption challenges in Asia and in Africa than in any other region – and least in Europe.
The Risk Advisory Group’s Corruption Challenges Index ranks 181 countries using a number of measures, including:
The rankings reflect the expert judgement of Risk Advisory’s analysts and their experience of helping organisations investigate and do business in those markets.
Enforcement actions under anti-bribery legislation such as the US Foreign and Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) can greatly elevate the risk to businesses operating in a jurisdiction, and the high number of FCPA cases involving China is one of the main reasons for its top spot in the index. A high corruption risk rating by Risk Advisory’s analysts, a censored press, and poor quality or hard to access public information were the other common features of the countries labelled as most challenging.
At the other end of the spectrum, Europe generally performs well in the index and dominates the list of least challenging countries. It makes its first appearance at number 28, with Greece, which although not assessed to have the highest risk of corruption in the region (that position is held by Bulgaria), presents significant challenges for foreign investors. Highly fragmented corporate databases and a lack of reliable local investigative sources make the country an extremely problematic place to conduct due diligence investigations, particularly for non-native Greek speakers.
Industry sectors are also ranked, with construction and development, infrastructure, oil and gas emerging as the most challenging from a corruption point of view.
Bill Waite, Group Chief Executive Officer of The Risk Advisory Group said, “High levels of corruption risk need not preclude a market from a company’s expansion plans for 2017. And indeed in certain industries the riskiest countries are often the most rewarding. The key to overcoming the challenges is to have a robust risk mitigation programme in place, based on adequate integrity due diligence.
“However, as Risk Advisory’s index shows, the ability to obtain the right information for due diligence varies enormously from one jurisdiction to the next. This is why having access to investigators with local experience, networks and language capabilities can greatly enhance a business’ chance of success.”
(Source: The Risk Advisory Group)
The latest risk guide from the Institute of Risk Management (IRM) and the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) features up-to-date case studies with key learnings and examples of best practice to help risk professionals navigate UK competition law. It promotes a culture of compliance led from the top down.
The updated guide follows the first director disqualification because competition law was broken. A managing director of an online poster supplier gave an undertaking not to act as a director of any UK company for 5 years for their part in an online price-fixing cartel.
A director of a company that breaks competition law can be disqualified from acting as a director of a company, or carrying out other specified roles in relation to a company, for up to 15 years.
The risk guide was developed as a joint CMA/IRM project and contributors were senior figures drawn from across both organisations.
In tandem with the updated risk guide the CMA has also published:
Nicola Crawford, CFIRM, Chair of the Institute of Risk Management says: “We welcomed the opportunity to work with the Competition and Markets Authority to produce this document for risk professionals on the risks of contravening UK competition law.
Competition benefits us all. It creates free and transparent markets in which to do business in an environment where competition is fair and honest. It offers some powerful recent and relevant case studies to highlight both unacceptable business practices and show just how easy it can be to get into difficulties if the risks are not properly understood and managed.”
David Currie, CMA Chairman said: “I am delighted that we are working with the IRM again to put the spotlight on the significant risks companies and their directors face if they don’t play by fair rules in business. Company directors have a special responsibility to be well-informed about their company practices and have a critical role to play in ensuring a business complies with the law.
In light of this I want to see anti-competitive behaviour taken as seriously by UK businesses and boards as the risks around bribery, fraud, health and safety and cyber-crime.”
(Source: CMA)
Last week the UK Sentencing Council announced its revision to the fines imposed on serious speeding offences. A driver caught doing 41mph in a 20mph zone, or 101mph on a motorway, could now be fined 150% of their weekly income. The Sentencing Council clarified that it wanted to guarantee a "clear increase in penalty" as the gravity of each offence increases.
Commenting on the Sentencing Council’s decision to increase speeding fines for the most serious cases, Lawyer Monthly hears the thoughts of several experts and specialists surrounding the matter.
Scott Jenkins, Operations Director, Autohorn Fleet Services:
In our opinion, the government has planned this change because they think current speeding charges aren’t working – people are still speeding so they need a bigger incentive not to. However, statistics have shown some improvements – the latest figures from the DfT suggest there has been a steady decline of motorists caught doing more than the speed limit on the motorways (approximately 3 per cent.)
The criteria for the fines are thus:
20mph speed limit: 41mph and above
30mph: 51mph +
40mph: 66mph +
50mph: 76-85 +
60mph: 91mph +
70mph: 101mph +
We believe that these criteria are completely fair and anybody driving these speeds within these limits should be penalised heavily, i.e. more than just a disqualification.
We think insurance policy premiums may fall as a result of the newly proposed speeding fines. This will be as a result of people not being able to afford the new fines; as such they will not take the risk of speeding. What’s more, with everybody driving slower, this will reduce the chance of collisions, leading to reduced premiums.
The public response to the new fines will probably be quite mixed as there are definitely two extreme opinions on either side of the speeding argument. Charities like Brake, for example, will praise the changes, whereas your general motorist will probably not warm to it – everyone has sped at some time or another!
Amanda Stretton, Motoring Editor, Confused.com:
It’s quite worrying to see just how many people across the UK break the speed limit, with a whopping 1.8million offences recorded in 2015 alone*. While the increasing speeding fine to 150% of weekly pay may seem steep, it’s important to remember that this measure is being put in place to keep our roads safe.
With some drivers reaching break-neck speeds, they are not only putting themselves in danger, but the risks posed to other drivers when speeding are incredibly high and the potential consequences could be fatal.
Confused.com urges drivers who do get caught speeding to declare any offences to their insurers. This may result in increased premiums, however, any points undeclared could affect their policy.
*Confused.com issued an FOI request to every Police Forces across the UK. Out of 44 police forces, 32 provided a response. According to the FOI data, in 2015, 1,852,204 motorists were caught speeding by Police Forces across the UK.
In February 2016, we found that 1.3 million drivers dodged speeding fines when pulled over by police. Here are police constabularies that have given out the most speeding tickets in 2015, accounting for almost half of all speeding fines issued across the UK:
CONSTABULARY // SPEEDING FINES ISSUED IN 2015
Thames Valley // 161,763
North Yorkshire // 67,787
Sussex // 62,719
Humberside // 53,700
Kent // 53,054
Scott Chesworth, Operations Director, RAM Tracking:
The Sentencing Council’s decision to increase speeding fines for the most serious cases is a positive step in boosting safety on British roads. Safety should always be a number one priority for businesses with fleets and the decision to significantly rise the penalty for drivers who exceed the speed limit sends a clear message that such behaviour is not acceptable. However, whilst hitting drivers’ pockets will encourage some to slow down, it is essential that employers invest in education and technology to really make an impact on long-term behaviour.
Whilst financial sanctions are an obvious deterrent to those intent on speeding – and will go some way in helping to make roads safer – for those businesses with fleets, managers should take additional steps to tackle the problem. From education to harnessing technology, fleet managers can utilise a range of methods to change and influence driver behaviour, ensuring that staff always act in a safe and legal manner.
When it comes to educating a workforce, fleet managers should use internal communications, such as newsletters and workshops, to reinforce the dangers of exceeding the speed limit. If an employee is aware that driving too fast significantly increases the chances of a serious or fatal accident, they are more likely to drive at a safer speed. However, education isn’t a one-way conversation. Fleet managers should talk to their staff and request feedback on why they may feel the need to speed. If responses include factors such as ‘not enough time to travel in between jobs’, then it becomes the manager’s responsibility to tackle the issue and ensure drivers have sufficient time to carry out their tasks.
To record drivers’ speeds, fleet managers should consider installing a vehicle tracking system. In-vehicle telematics can be a useful tool for monitoring the speed of drivers, as they can instantly alert head office when a driver goes above the limit, as well as provide reports to highlight how many times a speed limit is breached. By identifying those employees who drive at an inappropriate speed on a regular basis, managers will know which staff will benefit from additional training and support. Similarly, speed reports can be used to introduce an incentive system, whereby employees are rewarded for safe driving. This method can be just as effective as a disciplinary approach when encouraging drivers to obey the rules of the road.
Jeremy Sirrell, Partner, Palmers Solicitors:
It is with a heavy heart that I read the Sentencing Council has brought out a raft of amended guidelines to assist Magistrates’ in sentencing, one of which is in relation to matters of excess speed. The Sentencing Council now indicates that suggested fines for the more serious cases of speeding should rise by 50%, from 100% of a driver’s weekly wage to 150% of the driver’s weekly wage, the maximum penalty however remains unchanged at £2,500.00 if caught on a motorway.
This prompts a number of questions; the first question of course is what is the rationale for this swingeing increase? Feedback that current guidelines “did not properly take into account the increase in potential harm that can result as speed above the speed limit increases” is somewhat naive. To take an obvious example that will be very familiar to readers of this column a definition of a more serious case is on a motorway travelling at above 100 mph. At this speed the Magistrates’ will automatically consider some form of disqualification. I have yet to meet a single client who regarded the fine as the principal deterrent rather than the disqualification, in short, the Magistrates’ already have the power to treat more serious speeding cases more seriously and to reflect any increase in potential harm that may result and this is understood by the general driving public. It is therefore unclear to see what function increasing the guideline fine will perform other than to line the coffers of the state.
However, a more fundamental question comes to mind and that is exactly what makes a serious speeding case serious? I am often struck by the supine acceptance of speed limits by all and sundry treating them as if they were handed down from Mount Sinai by Moses himself, when in fact they are nothing more than limits (often set on an arbitrary basis) by a bureaucrat. There is very often little evidential basis for any particular limit and yet it is treated as if it is the very word of God himself and that a breach of the limit is automatically a dreadful thing. Little thought seems to be applied as to whether the limit is appropriate or necessary in the particular circumstances.
I am struck for example by the fact that I can travel quite lawfully at 80 mph on a motorway on the continent but an exactly similar stretch of road in Britain is subject to a 70mph limit. Last time I checked the laws of physics operated in exactly the same fashion in Britain as they did in France and Germany so why the difference? The answer is there is no good answer; the 70mph motorway limit is purely arbitrary and, it could be argued cogently, should be raised to 80 mph in line with our continental cousins.
Indeed, I have got a revolutionary idea; if the government really are serious at reducing the number of speeding offences why don’t we start at the other end and increase the motorway speed limit to 80 mph and correspondingly adjust upwards levels at which enforcement activity takes place – just as they do on the continent. I do not know by how many thousand this would reduce speeding convictions but I am pretty sure it will be a significant number and at the same time make journeys less stressful and possibly even a little faster.
Don’t expect to see it happen any time soon!
Charlie Steward, Customer Success and Partnership Manager, Cazana:
The introduction of tougher punishments for the more serious cases of speeding should be widely accepted. Doubling your speed in a 20mph zone as well as exceeding 100mph on the motorway should be punished more harshly than exceeding the 10% leeway rule. This is certainty more relevant in the first instance with speed limits being exceeded much more frequently on 20mph and 30mph zones compared to motorways and single carriageways (DVLA 2015).
However, the introduction of capped monetary fines will always provide difficulties, with one group being impacted more than the other. In this case, it’s the motorist earing an annual income below £47,000. If the motorists’ annual income is above this threshold, then the hit on their pocket will be proportionately lower than those earing under £47,000. Yet the simple answer and the view a majority of motorist will take is simply do not speed.
The large majority of these offenders will be caught via electronic policing which is great from a business point of view but very bad value from a road safety point of view. If the primary reason for the introduction of these increased fines is to improve safety on the roads, there are other equal or even more significant factors that could help improve road safety, especially on motorways. One of these is to increase police presence on roads to not only tackle speeding but also motorist who are illegally driving and those who do not follow the rules of the road.
Whilst most drivers understand how to use motorways and single carriageways safely and efficiently, a small minority of motorist still don’t understand or do not follow these rules. The introduction of on the spot fines for middle-lane hogging in 2013 has resulted in a very minimal amount of fines actually being issued, with a surprising amount of motorists still unaware it is illegal. As well as this, tailgaters and motorist driving well below the speed limit are also not reprimanded for their potentially dangerous driving.
Overall the large majority of motorists obey the speed limits and do not exceed these speeds by the amounts these new penalty bands are being introduced to tackle. The increased speeding fines will reduce excessive speeding of certain individuals, even if this does disproportionately affect the lower income motorists. It is also a necessity on urban roads where speed limits are exceeded much more frequently. However, to tackle road safety further driver education needs to be improved and a greater understanding of how to use motorways and single carriageways is required.
Phillip Somarakis, Head of the Motoring Offences Team, Gordon Dadds:
On 24 January 2017, the Sentencing Council for England and Wales published revised sentencing guidelines for various offences in the Magistrates’ Court. One of the most prominent changes includes a higher penalty for offenders whose speed falls within the most serious offence category in the speeding guideline.
The sentencing starting point for the most serious category has increased from a Band B fine being 100% of the offender’s relevant weekly income to a Band C fine. At 150% of the offender’s relevant weekly income, a Band C fine will now be the highest level available to the Magistrates or Judge when sentencing an offender for speeding. The Sentencing Council stated that the revised guidelines are “to ensure that there is a clear increase in penalty as the seriousness of offending increases”. However, there will be no changes to the guideline number of penalty points (3 – 6 points) or the length of a driving disqualification (7 – 56 days) for speeding offences. It is felt that the deterrent value is hitting the driver in the pocket.
In contrast, last year the Government announced that a person caught driving a motor vehicle on a road whilst using a hand-held mobile phone or other interactive device, will soon be subject to an obligatory endorsement of 6 penalty points, a doubling from the current 3 points. Whilst the financial penalty has also doubled (up from £100 to £200 as a fixed penalty), it is the Government’s knee-jerk emphasis on 6 points which attracts attention. Driving at 5 mph whilst texting will carry 6 points automatically. By comparison, a driver caught speeding would have to be driving typically around 100mph on a motorway to expect to receive 6 points. Or, a driver prosecuted for careless driving (which carries 3-9 points), would have to have hit a person, or caused a collision for example by turning across the path of an oncoming car to expect to receive 6 points.
Indeed, the position becomes even more absurd when one considers the definition of “driving.” Under Road Traffic law, “driving” is given a wide definition and can mean “in the course of driving.” Thus, a driver who is stuck in a nose-to-tail traffic jam but is stationary, will nevertheless be regarded as “in the course of driving” and thus “driving” It is hard to imagine what the risk of danger there is, in this situation, from a vehicle that is not moving. Yet a police officer walking by would be entitled to issue a fixed penalty of 6 points and £200 fine if he saw the driver holding their phone to get a travel update. In the same example, if the police officer saw the driver not on the phone but eating a sandwich, he could issue the driver with a fixed penalty for not being in proper control of their vehicle. But this only carries a maximum 3 penalty points, not 6, yet the risk levels seem identical.
There is clearly a problem with drivers using hand held phones whilst driving (but apparently less so when it comes to drinking lattes, eating sandwiches, grooming beards or applying make-up) and attitudes need to change. A report by the European Transport Safety Council published on 25 January 2017 stated that “a range of impairments and distractions affect young people. In-car distraction from mobile devices is also a problem”. Probationary drivers (these are mainly young persons) face an automatic retest if they accumulate 6 points within two years of passing their driving test. They have thus much more to lose if caught once under these proposals. In fact, it is a typical response from anyone who faces losing their liberty to drive, whether a new driver or a veteran, to offer to pay a higher fine if they can keep their licence. It is the loss of the right to drive, and not necessarily the fine, which is the motivator in my experience.
The above highlight an inconsistency in approach to driver deterrence, where the driver of a stationary vehicle in traffic could be treated more severely than deliberately speeding or driving too fast for weather conditions. At a time when there are changes to sentencing practice, a more consistent, logical approach which gives the public confidence in driver deterrence and road safety would have been welcomed.
We would also love to hear Your Thoughts on this, so feel free to comment below and tell us what you think!
