Seventeen convicted in Sussex Police's drink drive blitz

The Argus: Seventeen convicted in Sussex Police's drink drive blitz Seventeen convicted in Sussex Police's drink drive blitz

Seventeen more people have been convicted of drink driving following Sussex Police’s Christmas blitz.

A total of 45 people have now been dealt with by the courts as part of the force’s campaign.

Of the 17, 15 admitted drink-driving while two pleaded guilty to failing to give a specimen for analysis, after officers stopped their vehicles.

Jessica Haigh, 21, of Hill Road, Fareham, pleaded guilty to drink-driving. She was fined £250, ordered to pay £85 costs and banned from driving for a year.

Elizabeth Moore, 27, of Downsview Road, Seaford, pleaded guilty to drink-driving. She was fined £110, ordered to pay £85 costs and banned from driving for a year.

Douglas Ancell, 34, of Hillside Way, Brighton, pleaded guilty to drink-driving and was given a 12-week suspended prison sentence. He was also ordered to pay £85 costs and was banned from driving for 30 months.

Nathan Drury, 22, of Nevill Road, Uckfield, pleaded guilty to driving without a licence, driving while uninsured, taking a vehicle without consent and drink-driving. He was fined £366, ordered to pay £85 costs and banned from driving for 18 months.

Gareth Maggs, 32, of Farm Road, Hove, pleaded guilty to drink-driving. He was fined £250, ordered to pay £85 costs and banned from driving for a year.

David Molyneux, 50, of Fowler Close, Crawley, pleaded guilty to drink-driving. He was fined £650, ordered to pay £85 costs and was banned from driving for a year.

Kevin Adams, 58, of Thorndean Road, Brighton, pleaded guilty to drink-driving and driving without a licence. He was fined £110, ordered to pay £85 costs and was banned from driving for 20 months.

Sadie Bradford, 22, of Orchard Road, Hove, pleaded guilty to failing to provide a specimen for analysis. She was fined £100, ordered to pay £85 costs and given 10 points on her licence.

Mark Bott, 29, of Orchard Road, Hove, pleaded guilty to failing to provide a specimen and breaching a suspended sentence. He was fined £100, ordered to pay £85 costs, made the subject of a 12-month community order and given 10 points on his licence.

Warren Minto, 33, of Latimer Road, Eastbourne, pleaded guilty to drink-driving. He was given a 12-month community order, ordered to pay £85 costs and banned from driving for two years.

Nicholas Brown, 52, of Orltons Lane, Rusper, pleaded guilty to drink-driving and was fined £1500, ordered to pay £85 costs and banned from driving for 26 months.

Michael Griffin, 49, of Westbourne Villas, Hove, pleaded guilty to drink-driving and was fined £110, ordered to pay £85 costs and banned from driving for 17 months.

Trevor Harvey, 72, of Tulip Court, Horsham, pleaded guilty to drink-driving and was fined £270, ordered to pay £85 costs and banned from driving for 14 months.

Nathan Jervis, 23, of Great Lime Kilns, Southwater, pleaded guilty to drink-driving and was fined £225, ordered to pay £85 costs and banned from driving for 20 months.

Martyn Hernon, 35, of Railway Approach, East Grinstead, pleaded guilty to drink-driving and was fined £410, ordered to pay £85 costs and banned from driving for 22 months.

Anton Lanni, 33, of Church Road, Worth, pleaded guilty to drink-driving. He was fined £110, ordered to pay £85 costs and was banned from driving for a year.

Alison Hawkins, 47, of Six Acres, Slinfold, pleaded guilty to drink-driving. She was given a two month community order, ordered to pay £85 costs and banned from driving for 23 months.

Comments (3)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:31pm Mon 27 Jan 14

Richada says...

It appears that "failing to provide a specimen for analysis" is a way around a driving ban which is a pity.

Two other things struck me when reading this - the relatively young, average, age of those cought and the rather inconsistent punishment - i.e. driving ban periods.

Of my circle of extended friends and acquaintences it has always struck me that it is the older ones - in their 70's and 80's now - who are more likely to take the risk - partly because they always have since before the days of the breathalyser. That younger drivers are not sufficiently aware of this isssue is even more concerning.

It wil also be interesting to see if naming and shaming in this way proves a deterrant in future.
It appears that "failing to provide a specimen for analysis" is a way around a driving ban which is a pity. Two other things struck me when reading this - the relatively young, average, age of those cought and the rather inconsistent punishment - i.e. driving ban periods. Of my circle of extended friends and acquaintences it has always struck me that it is the older ones - in their 70's and 80's now - who are more likely to take the risk - partly because they always have since before the days of the breathalyser. That younger drivers are not sufficiently aware of this isssue is even more concerning. It wil also be interesting to see if naming and shaming in this way proves a deterrant in future. Richada

5:35pm Mon 27 Jan 14

theidiotsarewinning says...

So basically, this article is saying "fail to provide a specimen and you will be let off with points" - and "provide a specimen and we will ban you". Utterly absurd and totally wrong. I am mystified and stunned that this is the case - Surely failing to provide a specimen should be an INSTANT ban and double the punishment!!!!!!! Very very very odd indeed - and just think of all of the people who will read this and think "oh now I know what to do when I'm drunk and the police pull me over!" Can anyone make sense of this or please explain it to me???????!!!!!!
So basically, this article is saying "fail to provide a specimen and you will be let off with points" - and "provide a specimen and we will ban you". Utterly absurd and totally wrong. I am mystified and stunned that this is the case - Surely failing to provide a specimen should be an INSTANT ban and double the punishment!!!!!!! Very very very odd indeed - and just think of all of the people who will read this and think "oh now I know what to do when I'm drunk and the police pull me over!" Can anyone make sense of this or please explain it to me???????!!!!!! theidiotsarewinning

11:45pm Mon 27 Jan 14

greeg2 says...

I notice it is now "drink driving "as opposed to the old "drunk driving."I think all the discerning readers among us know why.
I notice it is now "drink driving "as opposed to the old "drunk driving."I think all the discerning readers among us know why. greeg2

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