Darlington car boss in pile-up while on the phone

8:00am Friday 7th September 2012 in News Photograph of the Author By Steven Hugill

THE director of a car firm who caused a three-vehicle accident while using his mobile phone to check his bank balance was spared a driving ban after pleading exceptional hardship.

James MacConachie, 36, hit two cars on the A66 on the outskirts of Darlington,near The Brick Train sculpture, as he spoke to HSBC about his account.

MacConachie, of Harris Street, Darlington, is director of Reiver Car and Commercials, of Faverdale, Darlington, and told the court that losing his licence could force his business to close.

Jonathan Bambro, prosecuting, told Darlington magistrates that MacConachie was driving near Morton Park, in January, when his Ford Ranger pick-up truck hit the back of a Vauxhall Vectra, causing it to hit an Audi A3 being driven by a doctor.

The impact forced the Vectra into a ditch, leaving its 35- year-old driver dazed. The doctor was unhurt.

Mr Bambro said: “He was on his phone getting a bank balance and accepted he did not give the road his full attention.”

Stephen Andrews, mitigating, said MacConachie, who already had 11 points on his licence, fully accepted driving without due care and attention.

He said: “He had been sensible enough to have a handsfree kit fitted, but did not realise engaging on the handset to use speed dial was an offence.

He knows it was stupid because his employment is all about driving and he does thousands of miles every year.

“If his licence went, his business would go, the house would go, and his three children would not have a roof above their heads.”

Chairwoman of the bench Patricia Wilson fined Mac- Conachie £265 and imposed six further points on his licence, but accepted his plea of exceptional hardship – allowing him to continue driving.

She said: “The court is not the conscience of your family, and it is your responsibility to look after your children.

“This offence is really bad reading for your licence and you will never be given a chance like this again.

“I suggest you stop speeding, take notice of your driving and do not use a mobile phone. If you come back on any of these offences, you will get no sympathy.”

Comments(37)

Paul M says...
9:53am Fri 7 Sep 12

For stupidity, this magistrate's comment ranks up there with the judge who said that burglary takes bravery.

As Sam Weller says in The Pickwick Papers, "The law is a ****, a idiot".

Report this post »

Paul M says...
9:54am Fri 7 Sep 12

Well, amazing - you even bowdlerise a driect quote from one of our greatest novelists, Charles Dickens!

Report this post »

judygone says...
10:03am Fri 7 Sep 12

Business man or not , he should of got a ban. Had it been joe public he would of been banned. Its about time these judges were sent back to school to learn common sense.

Report this post »

Cyclestrian says...
10:06am Fri 7 Sep 12

“If his licence went, his business would go, the house would go, and his three children would not have a roof above their heads.”

1. Who really believes this? Suppose he'd had a medical condition like a seizure and was banned from driving. Would his children really be on the street?

2. Even if true, this is exactly what drivers like this need to fear to make them more careful. Some countries don't take any crap: google for "French tourist jailed for speeding in Norway".

Report this post »

Oh Happy Days says...
11:18am Fri 7 Sep 12

I totally agree with all. . we need consistency from these judges, what's good for one offender should be good for another.
Ban them fronm driving and then make them go through the driving test process again at their own expense (theory and all). . and have to pass as well! None of this driving school refresher rubbish

Report this post »

Mutley27 says...
11:26am Fri 7 Sep 12

I loved the sorrowful violin soundtrack to this article, really brought tears to my eyes. They were tears of incredulousness!

Report this post »

entitled opinion says...
12:35pm Fri 7 Sep 12

Honestly these judges need to stop siding with the offenders and need to start giving out sentences that they deserve. He had 11 points already because he racked up that many in the first place so it is his own fault if he loses everything. The whole point of issuing penalty points on someone's licence is that when they get to 12 they get disqualified. So why has this judge not done that? We all have something to lose if we lose our licence but if you do something stupid then you should be punished for it.

Report this post »

sarahd says...
12:54pm Fri 7 Sep 12

Wrong on so many levels.

He already had 11 points so he knew that his next episode of idiotic driving would see a ban. Surely he must have been driving more carefully knowing he could loose everything. What on earth must his driving have been like when he had none/3 points.

I thought 12 points meant an instant ban. Surely a judge cannot take it upon themselves to let someone have 17 points and still be driving. I have never, ever heard of anyone having 17 points, and still be driving around.

Bad, bad mistake by the judge.

I would say I am a careful driver anyway but as I need my licence for my business, it makes me constantly think about my driving and the speed i'm going.

Report this post »

toffee2 says...
1:06pm Fri 7 Sep 12

No sympathy.... I was caught on steep camera doing 33MPH in a 30 limit and had the choice of receiving 3 points and a £60 fixed penalty, or pay £80 to complete a "driving awareness course" which cost me a days holiday.

I may have got what I deserved, but this case beggers belief. I was of the opinion that 12 point led to an automatic ban?? Or is that only for the "chosen few".

Report this post »

Insel_Affen says...
2:11pm Fri 7 Sep 12

A plea of hardship is a legitimate legal request, it is a one shot deal that can never be used again and it is only granted if your livelihood/job would be terminated if you lose your licence.

I know someone who was a driver and he used it to keep his licence; even though he had 12 points already (turned out it should have been 15 - but they forgot about them) and he kept his licence with a staggering 18 points!

Report this post »

jane1.r says...
2:30pm Fri 7 Sep 12

Whilst not disagreeing with the sentiment, I must say that "the law is an ****" is a quote from Mr. Bumble in Oliver Twist, when he learns that the law says a man is responsible for the actions of his wife!!

Report this post »

jane1.r says...
2:33pm Fri 7 Sep 12

Why is the word **** put in stars? It is an alternative word for a donkey, meaning an idiot. I hope the Northern echo is not mistaking our language for American, where **** is short for something else?!!

Report this post »

st-george1 says...
5:41pm Fri 7 Sep 12

A classic case here of magistrates supposedly promising to administer the full force of the law without prejudice and yet we see this local Company Director who got a paltry fine, a few more points on his licence, now 17, and still he gets no automatic ban from driving and he's free to continue despite his blatent lawbreaking. A potential lethal driver being set free and allowed back onto our roads putting other peoples lives at risk. Total madness that needs addressing by our Prime Minister.

Report this post »

simmo3578 says...
7:24pm Fri 7 Sep 12

How does he even afford car insurance? It must be extortionate!

Report this post »

Spy Boy says...
7:42pm Fri 7 Sep 12

The reason he was given 11 points is a clear message that the next one means a ban. How come this didn't happen ?

I'm sure that I heard of a similar case where the driver was only allowed business miles between certain hours.

17 points is just so stupid. He'll do the same again, as the 11 points didn't deter him a bit. He still had his little get out clause ready. So these days you can break any law and make the same plea and get out of jail free. I really don't understand why we even took him to court. Is he trying to get into the Guinness Book of Records ? I bet he's having a great laugh at the judge over a pint or two.

Report this post »

joeninety says...
8:38pm Fri 7 Sep 12

Spy Boy Wrote
I bet he's having a great laugh at the judge over a pint or two.”

Yes and seeing he is so arrogant and ban proof will most likely drive home after having them.

Report this post »

Paul J says...
10:50pm Fri 7 Sep 12

His surname sounds familiar.

Report this post »

DodgyMerchant says...
11:31pm Fri 7 Sep 12

brilliant judgement, reinforcing every blief on how biased and rubbish the system is, towards anyone with money and a posh lawyer.

If this arse had killed a family member of the magistrate, would they still be as considerate of his business? Would an unemployed 20 year old have got the same decision, even though losing their licence would severely limit his job prospects. If the answer, is no, the decision is a disgrace.

The time to take account of the danger to his business was when he was driving like a cretin. Unvortunately, they never do that and courts enable them.

Report this post »

DodgyMerchant says...
11:35pm Fri 7 Sep 12

simmo3578 wrote:
How does he even afford car insurance? It must be extortionate!
You're paying for it. It'll be a tax deductable.

Report this post »

JBOND007 says...
12:53am Sat 8 Sep 12

What to stop him going out again and kill someone next time. Certainly does not deserve to be a Director.

Report this post »

mumof2teenagers says...
8:00am Sat 8 Sep 12

This person should be treated like anyone else and have a lengthy ban, im sick of seeing motorists on mobile phones when driving and its getting more and more and have even seen police run past them, is it too much paper work for them the law is the law there should be no exceptions

Report this post »

johnny_p says...
8:37am Sat 8 Sep 12

I'm not condoning using a mobile phone while driving, but is it such a bad thing to do? The new millennium way of thought is that if you're not using a mobile/speeding/over the drink drive limit you must be driving perfectly safely? How many people are distracted by others in the car, smoke, and drive while tired? Those things are easily contributing factors in accidents.

Articles like this really bring out the haters- I guess all the comments above are from "perfect" drivers eh?

Report this post »

robbiejay says...
9:24am Sat 8 Sep 12

johnny_p, this is not just about using a mobile phone whilst driving. This is about ramming a car off the road whilst using a mobile phone. This bloke had 11 points, which suggests he's a bit of a hazard anyway!

Report this post »

bishop1 says...
10:16am Sat 8 Sep 12

I am just a normal member of society that works for a living & does not employ a lawyer ( posh or otherwise ) .
I have a clean driving licence as well , although I dare bet if I had committed the same offence of talking on the phone & crashing another car off the road I would have gone from no points to banned in one court appearance .
would more than likely have a bigger fine to pay as well .

Report this post »

bishop1 says...
10:19am Sat 8 Sep 12

Paul J wrote:
His surname sounds familiar.
could be related to the MD of sherwoods vauxhall , he has the same surname

Report this post »

johnny_p says...
2:25pm Sat 8 Sep 12

robbiejay wrote:
johnny_p, this is not just about using a mobile phone whilst driving. This is about ramming a car off the road whilst using a mobile phone. This bloke had 11 points, which suggests he's a bit of a hazard anyway!
He didn't "ram a car off the road". And what is the relevance of one of the drivers being a doctor? You sometimes have to counter what is written by journalists.

Report this post »

mark.wilkinson says...
4:36pm Sat 8 Sep 12

11 points and then a let-off for this? Unbelievable!!

The number of people I see driving while using a mobile phone never ceases to amaze me. And you can always tell that the driver/s in question have got a massive chip on their shoulders and drive aggressively and with attitude. This idiot should have been banned long ago by the sounds of it. After causing this accident he should have been banned and sent to jail for 2 years. Otherwise what's the point of the law? It's obviously not working to discourage using a phone whilst driving - so change it, or use it to punish the likes of this idiot in the proper way. And the lawyer defending him better hope that either he or a member of his family are not killed one day by someone using a mobile phone while driving like a fooking eejut. Our justice system sometimes just makes you wanna cry!

Report this post »

bishop1 says...
7:25pm Sat 8 Sep 12

money talks , always has & always will , this will be the main reason why this person is not sitting in a jail cell at this moment in time .

Report this post »

david l. reed says...
7:33am Mon 10 Sep 12

If it had been you or I we would have been banned, why wasn't he? The laws as ****. If he is in business he could afford a driver if he was banned.

Report this post »

miketually says...
9:54am Mon 10 Sep 12

Scarily, there are loads of drivers on UK roads with more than 12 points on their licence; this isn't a rare case.

I wonder how many professional drivers have passed points onto their spouse as well?

Report this post »

Quakerz says...
10:02am Mon 10 Sep 12

toffee2 wrote:
No sympathy.... I was caught on steep camera doing 33MPH in a 30 limit and had the choice of receiving 3 points and a £60 fixed penalty, or pay £80 to complete a "driving awareness course" which cost me a days holiday.

I may have got what I deserved, but this case beggers belief. I was of the opinion that 12 point led to an automatic ban?? Or is that only for the "chosen few".
33 in a 30 and you got done for it? Just a cash cow for the government, us motorists!

I can't believe they'd do anyone for 33 in a 30, thought they always gave a 10% allowance. obviously things have changed.

Report this post »

ScaffoldPlank says...
1:13pm Mon 10 Sep 12

If it was so important that he could drive then he should be driving carefully, especially on 11 points. This person should not be on the roads.

Report this post »

Becca. says...
5:23pm Mon 10 Sep 12

This person knows that he needs to drive for his job before committing the crime -- he still took it upon himself to take that chance and he caused an accident, added to the fact that he already had 11 points on his licence (so he's been caught breaking the law in the past too) should have been banned like anyone else would have been!

Not only has this man got away with breaking the law, but look at the example that is being set here? It's ridiculous.

Report this post »

johnny_p says...
11:38pm Mon 10 Sep 12

jane1.r wrote:
Why is the word **** put in stars? It is an alternative word for a donkey, meaning an idiot. I hope the Northern echo is not mistaking our language for American, where **** is short for something else?!!
The word a**e is offensive. The word "****", which describes an animal is not. I've never heard the expression "Law is an a**e used".

Report this post »

johnny_p says...
11:40pm Mon 10 Sep 12

Quakerz wrote:
toffee2 wrote:
No sympathy.... I was caught on steep camera doing 33MPH in a 30 limit and had the choice of receiving 3 points and a £60 fixed penalty, or pay £80 to complete a "driving awareness course" which cost me a days holiday.

I may have got what I deserved, but this case beggers belief. I was of the opinion that 12 point led to an automatic ban?? Or is that only for the "chosen few".
33 in a 30 and you got done for it? Just a cash cow for the government, us motorists!

I can't believe they'd do anyone for 33 in a 30, thought they always gave a 10% allowance. obviously things have changed.
Doh! Maths lesson needed..... I thought it would be quite easy to calculate what 10% of 30 was.......

Report this post »

drainman says...
6:39am Tue 11 Sep 12

Unbelievable! i got a £365 fine and 6 points for accidentally driving with no insurance due to the insurance company messing up my change over to another car. Another do gooder judge, you can't blame the guy for judges terrible decision.

Report this post »

robbiejay says...
9:35am Wed 12 Sep 12

johnny_p wrote:
robbiejay wrote:
johnny_p, this is not just about using a mobile phone whilst driving. This is about ramming a car off the road whilst using a mobile phone. This bloke had 11 points, which suggests he's a bit of a hazard anyway!
He didn't "ram a car off the road". And what is the relevance of one of the drivers being a doctor? You sometimes have to counter what is written by journalists.
"The impact forced the Vectra into a ditch"
If that doesn't count as ramming a car of the road, then I'm not sure what does!!

Report this post »

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