Driver spared jail term by sheriff despite flouting road ban 24 times

Published on Friday 11 September 2009 22:07

THE decision of a sheriff to spare a man a jail sentence for his 24th offence of driving while banned was described as "bizarre" yesterday by appeal judges who overturned the ruling.

Sheriff George Evans believed that prison had never stopped William Love in the past, and it would cost a lot of money to send him back again. So he ordered his van be seized and allowed Love to walk free.

Judges in the Justiciary Appeal Court took a different view, and have now jailed Love for nine months. One of them, Lord Uist, said of the sheriff's approach: "It seems very bizarre that the more someone offends and is sent to prison and continues to offend, there comes a time to stop sending him to prison."

Love, 49, was caught by police on 18 June last year after crossing the Tay Road Bridge into Fife, and he admitted charges of driving while disqualified, without insurance and of attempting to pervert the course of justice by giving officers a false name.

Cupar Sheriff Court was told that Love and a friend ran a scrap-metal business. Usually, the partner did the driving but he had become ill and Love decided to take a chance. Sheriff Evans admonished Love, and ordered forfeiture of his van, which he claimed to have bought for 800 weeks earlier.

The Crown challenged the sentence, arguing to the appeal court that it was unduly lenient. Advocate-depute Iain McSporran said custody should have been the only reasonable disposal of the case.

"His record is eloquent of someone to whom criminality is no stranger," said Mr McSporran. "He has 23 convictions for driving while disqualified, demonstrating an unwillingness and apparent inability to comply with court orders, imposed no doubt in large measure for the protection of the public."

Mr McSporran added that Love had been banned from driving for life in 1982, and several times had been jailed for breaching the ban. In his report on the case to the appeal court, Sheriff Evans said previous prison terms had had no deterrent effect on Love, and custody was "a highly costly disposal".

Mr McSporran said: "The Crown would observe that a jail sentence would at least have the benefit of protecting the public from this man for its duration.

"The sentence the sheriff chose left him free to continue his offending behaviour, if he so chose, with no restraint or control over him."

Moira MacKenzie, defence counsel, urged the appeal court to leave the original sentence. She said Love had a history of mental health difficulties and now suffered from rheumatoid arthritis and felt he would be unable to drive. He was currently serving a 12-month jail term imposed in England for burglary.

Lord Carloway, sitting with Lady Dorrian and Lord Uist, said Love had been jailed at least six times in 20 years for driving while banned. The judges had "no difficulty" in agreeing the punishment was unduly lenient.

"The sheriff imposed no effective penalty for this offence," said Lord Carloway.

Love, of Isleworth, London, was jailed for nine months, discounted from 12 months because of his plea of guilty.

Bill Aitken, the Conservative justice spokesman, said: "The appeal court decision is clearly the correct one. Mr Love's record of motoring offences was such that a further custodial sentence was inevitable."