Provisional driver from Banff ran away from police while clutching beer
A Banff man who was seen driving a damaged car at 10mph with the deployed airbags ran away from police while clutching a bottle of beer.
Richard Stuart, 31, appeared by video link from HMP Grampian, where he is currently on remand, to be sentenced for driving his car without insurance or a licence when constables caught up with him on March 23 this year.
He also admitted to not complying with the drink-driving procedures after he was caught with a beer when trying to make his escape from the scene.
The court was told he only did that because he felt aggrieved after one officer kneed him in the groin during his arrest.
He will now be banned from driving for 40 months.
Fiscal depute Kirsty Martin said officers spotted Stuart's car, a silver Vauxhall Corsa, driving through Banff at about 11.55pm.
They observed that it had been damaged, airbags were deployed, and that Stuart was driving it at speeds below 10mph and swerving.
'The vehicle came to an abrupt halt and the accused exited the vehicle,' Ms Stuart said.
'Constables went after the accused. When they caught up with him, they found him to be in possession of a bottle of beer.'
He was taken to Fraserburgh police station, where he refused to comply with testing procedures for alcohol.
'He was thereafter kept in police custody,' Ms Stuart added.
Checks would later reveal Stuart had only a provisional driving licence and no insurance on the car.
Stuart's defence agent, Stuart Beveridge, said his client was at a 'low ebb' because of the breakdown of a family relationship at the time of the offence.
Mr Beveridge said: 'He accepts when the police became aware of him he did run away from them.
'And, to be fair to him, in some of the evidence I've seen, police officers do accept in the process of arresting him there is a struggle and he is in fact kneed in the groin by one of the police officers and that, as referred to by Mr Stuart, as to why he thereafter refused to cooperate with them at all.'
Banning him from the roads, Sheriff Robert McDonald said he was 'disappointed' to see Stuart in the position he was.
'I'm disappointed to see you appearing from custody,' he said.
'In the circumstances, I don't think there's any sensible option but to sentence you today.'
In addition to the driving ban, Sheriff McDonald also imposed fines with no time to pay to take account of Stuart's status in custody.
As a result, his total fine of £800 will be converted into 28 days of imprisonment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
18 hours ago
- BBC News
Man, 67, who is 'too old' to be drugs courier jailed
A 67-year-old man caught delivering £144,000 of drugs agreed with the judge jailing him that he was "a bit old" for such Vadon was stopped by police as he drove towards Aberdeen from London with boxes of High Court in Edinburgh heard that police acting on information had pulled his car over on the A90 road at Temple of Fiddes, Fordoun, in Aberdeenshire, earlier this was jailed for two years and four months. Three cardboard boxes containing drugs were in the rear seat, and a further two were in the boot, with a total of 25kg of cannabis had been transporting the drugs for a fee of £1, counsel Neil Shand said Vadon had become homeless following the breakdown of a said he needed money to pay for accommodation and dental work but acknowledged that what he had done was a prisoner in HMP Grampian, admitted being concerned in the supply of drugs when he appeared at the court via a videolink before Lord Renucci. 'No stranger to court' The judge said to him: "You are a bit old for this are you not?".Vadon replied: "I am indeed."Lord Renucci said: "You are no stranger to the court, nor to the prison system."I am not going to lecture you Mr Vadon. You are now a man of some maturity, at 67 years of age. You will realise your actions have consequences for you. "The judge said that he would have faced a 42-month sentence but that it would be reduced to 28 months following his early guilty plea.
Daily Mirror
21 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Households that can save £174 a year by cancelling TV licence
Getting a No Licence Needed declaration could put an end to TV Licensing letters and visits TV Licence rules can be confusing, but some people may be paying £174.50 for no reason, while others could be risking £1,000 by skipping the fee illegally. This largely depends on what type of TV you watch or record, and if you don't meet the requirements for a TV Licence, filling out one simple form can keep the agency at bay. If you watch any of the following, you'll need to have a TV licence according to the TV Licensing authority: All live TV channels such as BBC, ITV and international channels Paid live TV services like Sky and Virgin Media Live streaming on services like Amazon Prime Video and Netflix BBC iPlayer This also includes watching, recording or downloading any of the above on any device. However, if you aren't watching any type of live TV or using BBC iPlayer, there may be a change that you don't need a TV licence. For example, if you're only watching DVDs, on-demand services like ITVX and All 4 or streaming sites like Netflix and Disney+, then you won't need a licence according to the Daily Record. Lee Stuart fell into this group as he exclusively watched online streaming services. The Kirkby resident initially had a TV licence registered on his home, but stopped watching broadcast TV and subsequently cancelled his licence. He then received a Single Justice Procedure Notice in January alleging that he was watching live TV without a valid licence. When a case gets to this point, the penalty can go up to £1,000 plus legal costs if you are prosecuted. But Stuart defended himself in court, and the case was ultimately dismissed by the judge due to a lack of proof. After the verdict was revealed, a TV Licensing representative said: "This was reviewed by TV Licensing following the court hearing in April 2025 as is standard practice, and no failings were highlighted." Stuart thought his troubles were over, but he soon received a remined from the agency about potentially needing a licence. In response, he filed an official grievance and filled out a No Licence Needed declaration. TV Licensing has confirmed they have received Mr Stuart's NLN form. This declaration form can be done online and asks you to describe your viewing habits to check you really don't need a licence. TV Licensing notes: "If you tell us you don't need a licence we may visit you to check. "If we then find that you have been watching, recording or streaming programmes illegally, you risk prosecution and a fine of up to £1,000 plus any legal costs and compensation you may be ordered to pay." A TV licensing spokesperson explained that declaring you don't need a licence will stop letters being sent to your address advising and reminding you about getting a TV licence. This will only last for one year though and letters will resume just in case your circumstances have changed.
Wales Online
3 days ago
- Wales Online
'I thought I'd beaten the TV licence system, then I received a letter'
'I thought I'd beaten the TV licence system, then I received a letter' Lee Stuart thought he's answered all a TV licensing inspector's questions and wouldn't need a licence, then he found himself in court - here's what happened next Lee Stuart (Image: Colin Lane/Liverpool Echo ) A man is celebrating after a court case about his TV licence was dismissed. Lee Stuart applied for a TV licence when he moved into his property, but cancelled it later as he only watched online streaming platforms and never any live television. Guidance on the TV Licensing website says that viewers are required to have a licence to watch or record live TV on any channel or device, including live programming streamed online via services such as ITV Hub, All 4, YouTube, and Amazon Prime Video. A licence is also required for using BBC iPlayer, the Liverpool Echo reports. A TV Licensing spokesperson said: "If a property we believe should be licensed is unlicensed, letters are sent to that address advising of the requirement for a TV Licence if the occupant watches live TV or other licensable content. "This stops for one year when the occupant declares they don't need a licence, when letters will resume to check if circumstances have changed." Last September a TV Licensing inspection officer visited Mr Stuart. Don't miss a court report by signing up to our crime newsletter here "I told him I didn't pay for a TV licence because I didn't think I needed one because I don't watch live TV," Mr Stuart said. Article continues below "I don't even have an aerial installed in my TV, and I invited him to do his checks. He was a bit apprehensive, but he looked at everything and asked me what I used the TV for. "So I told him I just watch Netflix and Amazon Prime through the PlayStation, and he asked me if I used BBC iPlayer and I said, 'no'." Mr Stuart said the officer then confirmed he wasn't breaching the television licensing requirements. He said the officer also documented their conversation and also read back the main points, including that no live TV was being watched and no BBC iPlayer account was used. "It was official, and I agreed with what he had said, so when I was presented with the big white signature box, I just signed it, and then he left. To be honest, I was really made up with myself, thinking I'd beaten the system and proved I didn't need a licence." Then, in January this year, Mr Stuart received a Single Justice Procedure Notice (SJPN), covering people who are alleged to have watched TV without a licence. "It said if I pleaded not guilty, the fine would be larger and I may have to pay court costs. So I'm not sure what's going on at this point. "I look through it all and at the back was the inspector's statement. Straight away I clock the question, 'May I come in to inspect the TV receiver?' and it said 'no' in the answer box, so that was wrong because I did. "The next point was saying I admitted to watching the news last week. So I've refused him entry and then admitted on the step I watched live news last week? It didn't make any sense." Mr Stuart decided to contest the notice and represent himself in court. He said: "I can see why people just accept it, but I knew I was innocent and I wasn't paying for a TV licence that I didn't need so I fought it." "I'll be totally honest, I was surprised by the outcome and I thought it might be good to share my experience." Sefton Magistrates court dismissed the case due to insufficient evidence. A TV Licensing spokesperson said: "This was reviewed by TV Licensing following the court hearing in April, 2025, as is standard practice, and no failings were highlighted." The spokesperson said the officer and Mr Stuart gave credible testimony in person but that the magistrates could not find the case was proved beyond reasonable doubt. Mr Stuart, who was satisfied with the outcome at first then received a further letter from TV Licensing advising of the licence requirement. He has now submitted a formal complaint and a No Licence Needed (NLN) declaration. Article continues below He added: "The form asks at the end, 'What outcome do you want from this?' and I just put 'All I want is to be left alone, but an apology wouldn't go amiss'." TV Licensing confirmed it had now received Mr Stuart's NLN declaration.
