Why court had to ban a blind driver

I would like to explain the sentence the magistrates imposed and to inform your readers of the legal framework magistrates have to work within.

Mr Aziz was convicted of dangerous driving. The maximum sentence magistrates can impose for such an offence is 26 weeks custody. They imposed 12 weeks custody and suspended this for 12 months. This took into account the aggravating factors relating to the offences before the court and the mitigation put forward on the defendant's behalf.

The court also had to disqualify Mr Aziz from driving until an extended test had been passed. This is compulsory for any person who is convicted of dangerous driving.

The magistrates announced in open court, at the time this sentence was imposed, that they acknowledged the defendant's physical limitations, but English law required them to disqualify him until an extended driving test had been taken.

The same law requires the driving records held at DVLA in Swansea to be endorsed with details of this conviction.

There were also offences of no insurance, no test certificate and driving without a licence before the court.

Although no financial penalties were imposed, the court also had to endorse the defendant's driving record. £364 was ordered in prosecution costs. The court made this award on the basis of information provided to the court on the defendant's financial circumstances.

The three magistrates who dealt with this case have been criticised in the Press for the sentence that was imposed. I hope this explains the sentencing framework that magistrates have regard to, and that the criticism that has been levied at the bench is unnecessary and without merit.

Mrs T M Calleia, Court Centre Manager, Warley Magistrates' Court, Oldbury.