Driver’s appeal on points is won

This Is Wiltshire: Driver’s appeal on points is won Driver’s appeal on points is won

A DAD-TO-BE who lost control of his car on the A419, rolling it into a field and sending his pregnant wife flying from the vehicle, has kept his licence.

New driver Sairam Kummari had leaned forward to reset his satellite navigation when he lost control as he headed north on the dual carriageway on the edge of Swindon.

After admitting driving without due care and attention the 33-year-old was given six penalty points, meaning his licence was revoked under the new driver provisions.

But after launching an appeal at Swindon Crown Court the IT worker had the sentence reduced to five points, leaving him free to drive again.

Hannah Squire, prosecuting, said Kummari was on his way to watch India play cricket in Cardiff last June when the accident happened.

The car “appears to have veered across the A419 and flipped on its roof in a field,” she said, adding that Mr Kummari’s wife was thrown from the vehicle.

Ms Squire said: “He was travelling at about 65mph and the sat nav stopped working. He leaned forward to switch it off and on.

“The car swerved left and the next thing he knew he was in the field and his wife was out of the car. They were both wearing seatbelts.

“Fortunately, his wife suffered no ill effects and they now have a baby.”

She said after he admitted the offence magistrates fined him £350 and put six points on his licence.

Because he had only passed his test in April last year DVLA revoked his licence meaning he would have to retake his test. Kummari, of Havergate Way, Reading, said he was only appealing against the points the justices had imposed.

Representing himself, he said: “It just happened in a second, the next thing I knew the car had crashed, my wife was away from the car.

“The ambulance and police arrived and we were taken to the hospital. She was pregnant at the time but had no further problems.

“I am a quite careful person, it was one of those little things that I did wrong. I have been driving since then because my job demands me to drive and I have had no incident since then.

“If I don’t drive it will dramatically affect my business life, like going to work. My work requires going to quite a lot of other offices.”

He said his wife did not drive and they also needed to take the baby to the doctor for vaccinations and routine check-ups.

Allowing the appeal Judge Douglas Field, sitting with two magistrates, said: “It was a momentary lapse of attention. No one else was involved.

“We have decided to allow the appeal to the extent that five points will be on the licence so it will not be automatic revocation.

“Until you pass the two year mark on your licence you will be at risk and you must drive very carefully.”

Comments (17)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:10am Wed 5 Feb 14

house on the hill says...

Stupid decision. Someone with their wife and unborn child in the car should be more responsible not less so irresponsibility is being rewarded. Wrong message being sent that its ok to drive how you want if its an "emergency", sorry that is wrong.
Stupid decision. Someone with their wife and unborn child in the car should be more responsible not less so irresponsibility is being rewarded. Wrong message being sent that its ok to drive how you want if its an "emergency", sorry that is wrong. house on the hill
  • Score: 13

8:23am Wed 5 Feb 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

Did he knew if the baby was a boy or a girl at the time of the accident?
Did he knew if the baby was a boy or a girl at the time of the accident? A.Baron-Cohen
  • Score: 2

8:38am Wed 5 Feb 14

ChannelX says...

You only really needed to read three words in the above article to know that the criminal would have won his appeal and got away with his crime.
You only really needed to read three words in the above article to know that the criminal would have won his appeal and got away with his crime. ChannelX
  • Score: 8

9:10am Wed 5 Feb 14

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

ChannelX wrote:
You only really needed to read three words in the above article to know that the criminal would have won his appeal and got away with his crime.
Criminal, really?

From the article it sounds like he simply lost control of the vehicle. Stupid, yes but calling him a criminal for having an accident (whatever the cause) seems a little over the top.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: You only really needed to read three words in the above article to know that the criminal would have won his appeal and got away with his crime.[/p][/quote]Criminal, really? From the article it sounds like he simply lost control of the vehicle. Stupid, yes but calling him a criminal for having an accident (whatever the cause) seems a little over the top. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
  • Score: 9

9:39am Wed 5 Feb 14

EmmBee says...

If he lived in Reading and was on his way to Cardiff, what was he doing (temporarily) on the A419?
If he lived in Reading and was on his way to Cardiff, what was he doing (temporarily) on the A419? EmmBee
  • Score: 11

9:53am Wed 5 Feb 14

nobody says...

What a complete **** and bull story, cannot understand how anyone can believe it, was he using his forehead to switch it on and off?

If your job requires you to have a licence then drive within the law, it's not rocket science.
What a complete **** and bull story, cannot understand how anyone can believe it, was he using his forehead to switch it on and off? If your job requires you to have a licence then drive within the law, it's not rocket science. nobody
  • Score: 8

9:55am Wed 5 Feb 14

ChannelX says...

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
You only really needed to read three words in the above article to know that the criminal would have won his appeal and got away with his crime.
Criminal, really?

From the article it sounds like he simply lost control of the vehicle. Stupid, yes but calling him a criminal for having an accident (whatever the cause) seems a little over the top.
Driving without due care and attention is a criminal offence.

The man in question was convicted of it.

What would you say that makes him?
[quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: You only really needed to read three words in the above article to know that the criminal would have won his appeal and got away with his crime.[/p][/quote]Criminal, really? From the article it sounds like he simply lost control of the vehicle. Stupid, yes but calling him a criminal for having an accident (whatever the cause) seems a little over the top.[/p][/quote]Driving without due care and attention is a criminal offence. The man in question was convicted of it. What would you say that makes him? ChannelX
  • Score: 6

10:06am Wed 5 Feb 14

benzss says...

ChannelX wrote:
You only really needed to read three words in the above article to know that the criminal would have won his appeal and got away with his crime.
There's an argument to be had that he's already been given the incentive not to mess about with his Sat Nav while on the move...
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: You only really needed to read three words in the above article to know that the criminal would have won his appeal and got away with his crime.[/p][/quote]There's an argument to be had that he's already been given the incentive not to mess about with his Sat Nav while on the move... benzss
  • Score: 3

11:01am Wed 5 Feb 14

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

ChannelX wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
You only really needed to read three words in the above article to know that the criminal would have won his appeal and got away with his crime.
Criminal, really?

From the article it sounds like he simply lost control of the vehicle. Stupid, yes but calling him a criminal for having an accident (whatever the cause) seems a little over the top.
Driving without due care and attention is a criminal offence.

The man in question was convicted of it.

What would you say that makes him?
I'd say it makes him the victim of an initial over the top judgement for something that was an accident, and that he's probably learnt a valuable lesson that thankfully didn't result in any loss of life. It was caused by his lack of control of the vehicle, yes, and of course he should have had more control over his vehicle but no one is perfect, and accidents do happen. If anything it simply highlights the lack of suitability of the current driving test and potentially the competency of his instructor.

Oh, and he didn't "get away with it". He still paid the fine, still has 5 points on his license which will make insurance expensive, and he has to be perfect with his driving for the next two years. I'd say that's sufficient punishment for a one-off accident wouldn't you?
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: You only really needed to read three words in the above article to know that the criminal would have won his appeal and got away with his crime.[/p][/quote]Criminal, really? From the article it sounds like he simply lost control of the vehicle. Stupid, yes but calling him a criminal for having an accident (whatever the cause) seems a little over the top.[/p][/quote]Driving without due care and attention is a criminal offence. The man in question was convicted of it. What would you say that makes him?[/p][/quote]I'd say it makes him the victim of an initial over the top judgement for something that was an accident, and that he's probably learnt a valuable lesson that thankfully didn't result in any loss of life. It was caused by his lack of control of the vehicle, yes, and of course he should have had more control over his vehicle but no one is perfect, and accidents do happen. If anything it simply highlights the lack of suitability of the current driving test and potentially the competency of his instructor. Oh, and he didn't "get away with it". He still paid the fine, still has 5 points on his license which will make insurance expensive, and he has to be perfect with his driving for the next two years. I'd say that's sufficient punishment for a one-off accident wouldn't you? The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
  • Score: 9

11:50am Wed 5 Feb 14

benzss says...

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
You only really needed to read three words in the above article to know that the criminal would have won his appeal and got away with his crime.
Criminal, really?

From the article it sounds like he simply lost control of the vehicle. Stupid, yes but calling him a criminal for having an accident (whatever the cause) seems a little over the top.
Driving without due care and attention is a criminal offence.

The man in question was convicted of it.

What would you say that makes him?
I'd say it makes him the victim of an initial over the top judgement for something that was an accident, and that he's probably learnt a valuable lesson that thankfully didn't result in any loss of life. It was caused by his lack of control of the vehicle, yes, and of course he should have had more control over his vehicle but no one is perfect, and accidents do happen. If anything it simply highlights the lack of suitability of the current driving test and potentially the competency of his instructor.

Oh, and he didn't "get away with it". He still paid the fine, still has 5 points on his license which will make insurance expensive, and he has to be perfect with his driving for the next two years. I'd say that's sufficient punishment for a one-off accident wouldn't you?
Yes, but being reasonable like that leaves little room for climbing on one's soapbox!
[quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: You only really needed to read three words in the above article to know that the criminal would have won his appeal and got away with his crime.[/p][/quote]Criminal, really? From the article it sounds like he simply lost control of the vehicle. Stupid, yes but calling him a criminal for having an accident (whatever the cause) seems a little over the top.[/p][/quote]Driving without due care and attention is a criminal offence. The man in question was convicted of it. What would you say that makes him?[/p][/quote]I'd say it makes him the victim of an initial over the top judgement for something that was an accident, and that he's probably learnt a valuable lesson that thankfully didn't result in any loss of life. It was caused by his lack of control of the vehicle, yes, and of course he should have had more control over his vehicle but no one is perfect, and accidents do happen. If anything it simply highlights the lack of suitability of the current driving test and potentially the competency of his instructor. Oh, and he didn't "get away with it". He still paid the fine, still has 5 points on his license which will make insurance expensive, and he has to be perfect with his driving for the next two years. I'd say that's sufficient punishment for a one-off accident wouldn't you?[/p][/quote]Yes, but being reasonable like that leaves little room for climbing on one's soapbox! benzss
  • Score: 1

12:42pm Wed 5 Feb 14

ChannelX says...

benzss wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
You only really needed to read three words in the above article to know that the criminal would have won his appeal and got away with his crime.
There's an argument to be had that he's already been given the incentive not to mess about with his Sat Nav while on the move...
What was that then?
[quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: You only really needed to read three words in the above article to know that the criminal would have won his appeal and got away with his crime.[/p][/quote]There's an argument to be had that he's already been given the incentive not to mess about with his Sat Nav while on the move...[/p][/quote]What was that then? ChannelX
  • Score: 1

12:44pm Wed 5 Feb 14

ChannelX says...

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
You only really needed to read three words in the above article to know that the criminal would have won his appeal and got away with his crime.
Criminal, really?

From the article it sounds like he simply lost control of the vehicle. Stupid, yes but calling him a criminal for having an accident (whatever the cause) seems a little over the top.
Driving without due care and attention is a criminal offence.

The man in question was convicted of it.

What would you say that makes him?
I'd say it makes him the victim of an initial over the top judgement for something that was an accident, and that he's probably learnt a valuable lesson that thankfully didn't result in any loss of life. It was caused by his lack of control of the vehicle, yes, and of course he should have had more control over his vehicle but no one is perfect, and accidents do happen. If anything it simply highlights the lack of suitability of the current driving test and potentially the competency of his instructor.

Oh, and he didn't "get away with it". He still paid the fine, still has 5 points on his license which will make insurance expensive, and he has to be perfect with his driving for the next two years. I'd say that's sufficient punishment for a one-off accident wouldn't you?
Ah, so you're saying he managed to crash so spectacularly while messing about with his Sat Nav while NOT driving without due care and attention?

He was convicted of the crime - something that's quite an achievement these days - just because you think it was all just a bit of an accident doesn't mean it was.

Like it or not, he has a criminal record for being convicted of a criminal offence.

That makes him a criminal, no?
[quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: You only really needed to read three words in the above article to know that the criminal would have won his appeal and got away with his crime.[/p][/quote]Criminal, really? From the article it sounds like he simply lost control of the vehicle. Stupid, yes but calling him a criminal for having an accident (whatever the cause) seems a little over the top.[/p][/quote]Driving without due care and attention is a criminal offence. The man in question was convicted of it. What would you say that makes him?[/p][/quote]I'd say it makes him the victim of an initial over the top judgement for something that was an accident, and that he's probably learnt a valuable lesson that thankfully didn't result in any loss of life. It was caused by his lack of control of the vehicle, yes, and of course he should have had more control over his vehicle but no one is perfect, and accidents do happen. If anything it simply highlights the lack of suitability of the current driving test and potentially the competency of his instructor. Oh, and he didn't "get away with it". He still paid the fine, still has 5 points on his license which will make insurance expensive, and he has to be perfect with his driving for the next two years. I'd say that's sufficient punishment for a one-off accident wouldn't you?[/p][/quote]Ah, so you're saying he managed to crash so spectacularly while messing about with his Sat Nav while NOT driving without due care and attention? He was convicted of the crime - something that's quite an achievement these days - just because you think it was all just a bit of an accident doesn't mean it was. Like it or not, he has a criminal record for being convicted of a criminal offence. That makes him a criminal, no? ChannelX
  • Score: -3

1:41pm Wed 5 Feb 14

benzss says...

ChannelX wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
You only really needed to read three words in the above article to know that the criminal would have won his appeal and got away with his crime.
Criminal, really?

From the article it sounds like he simply lost control of the vehicle. Stupid, yes but calling him a criminal for having an accident (whatever the cause) seems a little over the top.
Driving without due care and attention is a criminal offence.

The man in question was convicted of it.

What would you say that makes him?
I'd say it makes him the victim of an initial over the top judgement for something that was an accident, and that he's probably learnt a valuable lesson that thankfully didn't result in any loss of life. It was caused by his lack of control of the vehicle, yes, and of course he should have had more control over his vehicle but no one is perfect, and accidents do happen. If anything it simply highlights the lack of suitability of the current driving test and potentially the competency of his instructor.

Oh, and he didn't "get away with it". He still paid the fine, still has 5 points on his license which will make insurance expensive, and he has to be perfect with his driving for the next two years. I'd say that's sufficient punishment for a one-off accident wouldn't you?
Ah, so you're saying he managed to crash so spectacularly while messing about with his Sat Nav while NOT driving without due care and attention?

He was convicted of the crime - something that's quite an achievement these days - just because you think it was all just a bit of an accident doesn't mean it was.

Like it or not, he has a criminal record for being convicted of a criminal offence.

That makes him a criminal, no?
Like it or not, the judiciary is entitled to exercise discretion. That is part of its remit.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: You only really needed to read three words in the above article to know that the criminal would have won his appeal and got away with his crime.[/p][/quote]Criminal, really? From the article it sounds like he simply lost control of the vehicle. Stupid, yes but calling him a criminal for having an accident (whatever the cause) seems a little over the top.[/p][/quote]Driving without due care and attention is a criminal offence. The man in question was convicted of it. What would you say that makes him?[/p][/quote]I'd say it makes him the victim of an initial over the top judgement for something that was an accident, and that he's probably learnt a valuable lesson that thankfully didn't result in any loss of life. It was caused by his lack of control of the vehicle, yes, and of course he should have had more control over his vehicle but no one is perfect, and accidents do happen. If anything it simply highlights the lack of suitability of the current driving test and potentially the competency of his instructor. Oh, and he didn't "get away with it". He still paid the fine, still has 5 points on his license which will make insurance expensive, and he has to be perfect with his driving for the next two years. I'd say that's sufficient punishment for a one-off accident wouldn't you?[/p][/quote]Ah, so you're saying he managed to crash so spectacularly while messing about with his Sat Nav while NOT driving without due care and attention? He was convicted of the crime - something that's quite an achievement these days - just because you think it was all just a bit of an accident doesn't mean it was. Like it or not, he has a criminal record for being convicted of a criminal offence. That makes him a criminal, no?[/p][/quote]Like it or not, the judiciary is entitled to exercise discretion. That is part of its remit. benzss
  • Score: -1

1:53pm Wed 5 Feb 14

Davey Gravey says...

Why people cannot plan a journey and use a map I don't know. Reliance on satnavs by people is sad and as above shows, dangerous.
Why people cannot plan a journey and use a map I don't know. Reliance on satnavs by people is sad and as above shows, dangerous. Davey Gravey
  • Score: 0

2:56pm Wed 5 Feb 14

ChannelX says...

benzss wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
You only really needed to read three words in the above article to know that the criminal would have won his appeal and got away with his crime.
Criminal, really?

From the article it sounds like he simply lost control of the vehicle. Stupid, yes but calling him a criminal for having an accident (whatever the cause) seems a little over the top.
Driving without due care and attention is a criminal offence.

The man in question was convicted of it.

What would you say that makes him?
I'd say it makes him the victim of an initial over the top judgement for something that was an accident, and that he's probably learnt a valuable lesson that thankfully didn't result in any loss of life. It was caused by his lack of control of the vehicle, yes, and of course he should have had more control over his vehicle but no one is perfect, and accidents do happen. If anything it simply highlights the lack of suitability of the current driving test and potentially the competency of his instructor.

Oh, and he didn't "get away with it". He still paid the fine, still has 5 points on his license which will make insurance expensive, and he has to be perfect with his driving for the next two years. I'd say that's sufficient punishment for a one-off accident wouldn't you?
Ah, so you're saying he managed to crash so spectacularly while messing about with his Sat Nav while NOT driving without due care and attention?

He was convicted of the crime - something that's quite an achievement these days - just because you think it was all just a bit of an accident doesn't mean it was.

Like it or not, he has a criminal record for being convicted of a criminal offence.

That makes him a criminal, no?
Like it or not, the judiciary is entitled to exercise discretion. That is part of its remit.
I didn't say I didn't 'like' it - I merely pointed out that anyone would have known the convicted criminal would have been let off / treated more leniently just by reading three specific words in the article.
[quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: You only really needed to read three words in the above article to know that the criminal would have won his appeal and got away with his crime.[/p][/quote]Criminal, really? From the article it sounds like he simply lost control of the vehicle. Stupid, yes but calling him a criminal for having an accident (whatever the cause) seems a little over the top.[/p][/quote]Driving without due care and attention is a criminal offence. The man in question was convicted of it. What would you say that makes him?[/p][/quote]I'd say it makes him the victim of an initial over the top judgement for something that was an accident, and that he's probably learnt a valuable lesson that thankfully didn't result in any loss of life. It was caused by his lack of control of the vehicle, yes, and of course he should have had more control over his vehicle but no one is perfect, and accidents do happen. If anything it simply highlights the lack of suitability of the current driving test and potentially the competency of his instructor. Oh, and he didn't "get away with it". He still paid the fine, still has 5 points on his license which will make insurance expensive, and he has to be perfect with his driving for the next two years. I'd say that's sufficient punishment for a one-off accident wouldn't you?[/p][/quote]Ah, so you're saying he managed to crash so spectacularly while messing about with his Sat Nav while NOT driving without due care and attention? He was convicted of the crime - something that's quite an achievement these days - just because you think it was all just a bit of an accident doesn't mean it was. Like it or not, he has a criminal record for being convicted of a criminal offence. That makes him a criminal, no?[/p][/quote]Like it or not, the judiciary is entitled to exercise discretion. That is part of its remit.[/p][/quote]I didn't say I didn't 'like' it - I merely pointed out that anyone would have known the convicted criminal would have been let off / treated more leniently just by reading three specific words in the article. ChannelX
  • Score: 0

3:54pm Wed 5 Feb 14

Al Smith says...

Would an 18 year old who got caught speeding twice be treated so lightly I wonder?

Also how does a person wearing a seat belt fly out of car - that must take one heck of an impact (one where limbs would have been lost)?
Would an 18 year old who got caught speeding twice be treated so lightly I wonder? Also how does a person wearing a seat belt fly out of car - that must take one heck of an impact (one where limbs would have been lost)? Al Smith
  • Score: 1

6:37pm Wed 5 Feb 14

faatmaan says...

the man had obviously scraped a driving test pass. There is no justifiable reason why he was not fully punished as the guideline on sentencing suggest, effectively this case will be used as leverage for others to escape prosecution.

Why have laws if they are not fully enforced by the judiciary, the Police are always carrying he can for on enforcement, when in this case they do the right thing, the Judiciary turns it upside down. Another case for Anarchy in the UK ?
the man had obviously scraped a driving test pass. There is no justifiable reason why he was not fully punished as the guideline on sentencing suggest, effectively this case will be used as leverage for others to escape prosecution. Why have laws if they are not fully enforced by the judiciary, the Police are always carrying he can for on enforcement, when in this case they do the right thing, the Judiciary turns it upside down. Another case for Anarchy in the UK ? faatmaan
  • Score: -1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree