Taxi driver banned for two months for speeding

Thursday 01 September 2016

A taxi driver who was caught racing through St Clement at over twice the speed limit has been banned from driving for two months.

Nigel Gregory was halted by police officers on May 27th at 21:07 and told he had reached 64mph in a 30mph zone on Le Grande Route de St Clement.

The Magistrate’s Court heard Gregory admit the offence and although he did not have a passenger in his car, a Skoda Octavia, at the time he was caught, Assistant Magistrate Peter Harris still banned him for two months and imposed a £465 fine.

Defending Advocate David Steenson said Gregory’s speeding had been a, “...lapse in judgement and a lapse in concentration.” 

Advocate Steenson added: “The defendant had a number of things on his mind at the time of the offence, including an illness to his father and he was ill himself. He also had a number of financial worries which meant his mind was elsewhere and he did not appreciate he was speeding when he was clocked. 

“The court I hope will appreciate the loss of his licence will cause real difficulties for him. Losing his licence will mean losing his livelihood and prevent him from attending to hospital to run errands and daily chores for his father. If the court does decide to impose a disqualification then we would ask for it to be as short as possible.”

The Assistant Magistrate said: “Your speed does fall into the disqualification guidelines and framework and I cannot see any justification in not imposing one. I am aware this will have a direct input on your ability to earn. 

“The consequences for this momentary lapse in concentration is that you will be disqualified from driving for two months, but you will not be required to re-take your test after you have completed this period.

“Had you have had a passenger in your car at the time, that would have been an aggravating factor, but you did not. Where you were stopped was also near Le Rocquier School, but at the time there were no schoolchildren around. Again, that would have been an aggravating factor, but it does not apply in this case.”