drink driver caught on her own dash cam

[Blackbird1]

"Officers arrived at the scene in Turkey Road and the driver was identified as Louise Willard, 41, a teacher, of Ashby Close, Bexhill. Fortunately, she was uninjured.

She was required to undergo a roadside breath test, which she failed, and she was subsequently charged with driving with 94mcg of alcohol per 100ml of breath in her system. The legal limit is 35mcg. She was also charged with failing to stop after a road traffic collision.

At Hastings Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday (25 April), Willard pleaded guilty to both offences and was disqualified from driving for 2 years. She was also sentenced to a year community order, requiring her to carry out 150 hours of unpaid work, and ordered to pay £85 costs and a £85 victim surcharge."

Edited to say 2 years and a year

Why all this 24 months crap 2 years ffs

 

[MancMike]

Why all this 24 months crap 2 years ffs

For consistency. Most shorter sentences are handed out in a number of months. So you say the number of months. You don't always need to simplify.

What if it wasn't 2 years, i.e 24 months? What if 25 months was handed out? Then it's urm, 2.0125 months?

It's the same reason women talk about pregnancy in months, but men need it in months. They'll say "26 weeks!". I'm like "brb, oh 6 'n' half months!".

They've a vested interest, so every week is notable to them. Whenever my mrs tells me someone is 32 weeks pregnant I still have to go and do some maths to work out how many months she is. Then there's the third trimester and I just tend to say yes dear that's lovely. (I assume that means the final third, but daren't ask as she might be shocked that I don't know!)

 

[baxlin]

For consistency. Most shorter sentences are handed out in a number of months. So you say the number of months. You don't always need to simplify.

What if it wasn't 2 years, i.e 24 months? What if 25 months was handed out? Then it's urm, 2.0125 months?

2.0125 Months? Point well made, it is confusing, converting months into years......

 

[John]

I don’t see that a driving licence is a requirement to be a teacher , so unless the offence was related to her employment- eg drunk while driving a school minibus , or with pupils in her car , then it has nothing to do with her employers .

I worked in a high school for eight years , during that time one of the teachers was convicted of drunk driving and banned for a year - he simply got the bus to work and carried on teaching .

Never reoffended before retiring while I still worked there .

Not true.

There are a number of reasons why it has everything to do with her employer.

Firstly, there is "bringing the school into disrepute". If her details and employer are splashed across the Internet, goodbye teacher. If the Internet is right, she was a headteacher. If the employer wasn't listed in the article but someone found out and contacted the school to complain they didn't want this teacher teaching their children, goodbye teacher.

Secondly, professional standards and conduct. A teacher is supposed to behave to a certain standard, of which being found guilty of drink-driving falls well below the standard expected. If she was a headteacher, even more nails to go in the coffin.

 

[MancMike]

2.0125 Months? Point well made, it is confusing, converting months into years......

It is when there’s 12 months in a year but we use a decimal number system.

It’s 2.083 years actually. Not very easy to work out off the top of your head.

 

[Scott_F]

Not true.

There are a number of reasons why it has everything to do with her employer.

Firstly, there is "bringing the school into disrepute". If her details and employer are splashed across the Internet, goodbye teacher. If the Internet is right, she was a headteacher. If the employer wasn't listed in the article but someone found out and contacted the school to complain they didn't want this teacher teaching their children, goodbye teacher.

Secondly, professional standards and conduct. A teacher is supposed to behave to a certain standard, of which being found guilty of drink-driving falls well below the standard expected. If she was a headteacher, even more nails to go in the coffin.

I don't think you are correct.

Any organisation which has an employee who is convicted for drink driving could, in theory, claim that the individual has brought their organisation into disrepute. However, in practice, very few do so.

For this woman's actions to be judged as having fallen below the standards expected, I would expect to see clear evidence that her drinking had impacted directly on her conduct and performance in the workplace. The case in question does not show this and is an external matter.

 

[John]

I don't think you are correct.

Any organisation which has an employee who is convicted for drink driving could, in theory, claim that the individual has brought their organisation into disrepute. However, in practice, very few do so.

For this woman's actions to be judged as having fallen below the standards expected, I would expect to see clear evidence that her drinking had impacted directly on her conduct and performance in the workplace. The case in question does not show this and is an external matter.

The fact it happens remains regardless of numbers dismissal in such a way can and does happen.

It's down to the organisation to decide what they wish to do. Should they wish to follow that path, they would win their case.

Every case is different and we neither know the full facts nor the feelings of the school.

So many outcomes are possible.

 

[Scott_F]

The fact it happens remains regardless of numbers dismissal in such a way can and does happen.

Pardon ?

It's down to the organisation to decide what they wish to do. Should they wish to follow that path, they would win their case.

Every case is different and we neither know the full facts nor the feelings of the school.

So many outcomes are possible.

For an outright dismissal with no prior verbal or written warnings the school would have to act on grounds such as gross misconduct.

And since her conduct wasn't directly related to her employment I don't think they would win their case and would instead be leaving themselves wide open to a claim of unfair dismissal.

 

[John]

For an outright dismissal with no prior verbal or written warnings the school would have to act on grounds such as gross misconduct.

And since her conduct wasn't directly related to her employment I don't think they would win their case and would instead be leaving themselves wide open to a claim of unfair dismissal.

...and your opinion is welcome to the discussion as is anyone else's.

 

[optimusprime]

By law every one should have a dash cam .

 

[m2287]

I believe drink driving would show up on a DBS. I’m not 100% clued up but as far as I know, if you don’t pass then you can’t work with children, this is the avenue I believe the school would go down if they wanted to go with gross misconduct.

 

[John]

I believe drink driving would show up on a DBS. I’m not 100% clued up but as far as I know, if you don’t pass then you can’t work with children, this is the avenue I believe the school would go down if they wanted to go with gross misconduct.

My other half works as a senior HR advisor supporting schools so she has dealt with this kind of situation a few times in the past.

The employer will almost always win if the employee wanted to fight unless there are incredibly strong mitigating circumstances or they have been treated unfairly.

This applies to any company with an employee who brings the company's image into disrepute.

I imagine like anything, there are all sorts of permutations and outcomes but this is generally the case.

 

[Scott_F]

I believe drink driving would show up on a DBS. I’m not 100% clued up but as far as I know, if you don’t pass then you can’t work with children, this is the avenue I believe the school would go down if they wanted to go with gross misconduct.

A criminal conviction does not automatically prevent you from working with children. It depends on the nature of the offence.

 

[190]

I've worked in a school for 16 years and don't recall any one being dismissed for bringing the school in to disrepute, although that doesn't mean it didn't happen if it was hushed up. It's probably more likely in the future with most schools becoming academies as that gives them more independence to make such decisions.

There was a time when staff would have a drink on the last day of term after all the kids had gone home but even that is no more. I suppose no employer should encourage drink driving by providing alcohol to staff in the work place.

Bizarrely the school has a licence to sell alcohol in the evening when we have Drama productions etc but that's for fund raising and we don't ask the parents mode of transport for getting home.

 

[m2287]

A criminal conviction does not automatically prevent you from working with children. It depends on the nature of the offence.

Fair enough, I’m not clued up on these things! Would drink driving be considered serious enough, I have to say that I would be concerned if the headmistress of my children’s school was convicted of drink driving, it wouldn’t give me confidence in her decision making skills.

 

[Scott_F]

Fair enough, I’m not clued up on these things! Would drink driving be considered serious enough, I have to say that I would be concerned if the headmistress of my children’s school was convicted of drink driving, it wouldn’t give me confidence in her decision making skills.

As already stated, I'm not at all sure that the conviction itself constitutes a dismissal offence but the fact that footage of the whole episode is in the public domain is not helpful to her.

Lord Archer maintains a seat in the House of Lords where he is in a position to influence legislation despite being a convicted perjurer who went to jail. So much for his decision making skills. And ours.

 

[John]

Here is an example of where something totally unrelated to a person's job ends up in them being dismissed:

B. Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 3 October 2017. It was alleged that Mr William Evans was guilty of conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst employed as a teacher at the Queen Elizabeth Humanities College, an 11-16 comprehensive school in Herefordshire: 1. On 2 October 2016, he: a. was in possession of a number of packets containing a quantity of cocaine at his home address; b. tested positive to having used cocaine. 2. In respect of his conduct at Allegation 1(a), he received a police caution on 2 October 2016 for possession of a controlled drug (Class A) in contravention of section 5(1) of the Misuses of Drugs Act 1971 and/or contrary to section 5(2) of and/or Schedule 4 to the Misuses of Drugs Act 1971. Mr Evans admitted the facts alleged in paragraphs 1 and 2 in his response to the Notice of Proceedings. Mr Evans denied that he was guilty of conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...89/Mr_William_Evans__15762_-_Web_Decision.pdf

There are quite a lot of examples of similar "nothing to do with my work" cases this on the Internet and no doubt many more which have not surfaced.

At the end of the day, LW has been charged and convicted of a criminal offence.

This is someone who is a head teacher / governor of the school (Meet the Governors).

Nothing to do with employment law is always exact in so far as it takes a panel to decide based on the evidence. But with regard to this case, I am amazed that anyone would judge these actions to be acceptable such that a person found guilty of them be allowed to remain in a position of responsibility and trust.

What example does this set the school children that this kind of behaviour is acceptable and you can keep your job?

As for Lord Archer, surely this would have nothing to do with the old boys network and flagrant disregard for anything decent and proper throughout those in those circles.

MPs and the like are completely trustworthy. It's not like they would try and rip off the public purse with dodgy expense claims or similar...

 

[markjay]

Here is an example of where something totally unrelated to a person's job ends up in them being dismissed:

B. Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 3 October 2017. It was alleged that Mr William Evans was guilty of conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst employed as a teacher at the Queen Elizabeth Humanities College, an 11-16 comprehensive school in Herefordshire: 1. On 2 October 2016, he: a. was in possession of a number of packets containing a quantity of cocaine at his home address; b. tested positive to having used cocaine. 2. In respect of his conduct at Allegation 1(a), he received a police caution on 2 October 2016 for possession of a controlled drug (Class A) in contravention of section 5(1) of the Misuses of Drugs Act 1971 and/or contrary to section 5(2) of and/or Schedule 4 to the Misuses of Drugs Act 1971. Mr Evans admitted the facts alleged in paragraphs 1 and 2 in his response to the Notice of Proceedings. Mr Evans denied that he was guilty of conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. ....

This was a professional misconduct hearing. Which is a very good point, because had the drunk-driver teacher been disqualified from teaching by the Department for Education, then the school wouldn't need to get involved in a potential employment tribunal.

 

[Scott_F]

Here is an example of where something totally unrelated to a person's job ends up in them being dismissed:

B. Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 3 October 2017. It was alleged that Mr William Evans was guilty of conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst employed as a teacher at the Queen Elizabeth Humanities College, an 11-16 comprehensive school in Herefordshire: 1. On 2 October 2016, he: a. was in possession of a number of packets containing a quantity of cocaine at his home address; b. tested positive to having used cocaine. 2. In respect of his conduct at Allegation 1(a), he received a police caution on 2 October 2016 for possession of a controlled drug (Class A) in contravention of section 5(1) of the Misuses of Drugs Act 1971 and/or contrary to section 5(2) of and/or Schedule 4 to the Misuses of Drugs Act 1971. Mr Evans admitted the facts alleged in paragraphs 1 and 2 in his response to the Notice of Proceedings. Mr Evans denied that he was guilty of conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...89/Mr_William_Evans__15762_-_Web_Decision.pdf

There are quite a lot of examples of similar "nothing to do with my work" cases this on the Internet and no doubt many more which have not surfaced.

The two cases are fundamentally different.

Your example involves an illegal substance and so the school could reasonably take the view that there is a risk of some of his packets of cocaine being brought onto the premises and supplied to pupils. On the other hand, the drink driving case involves illegal use of a legal substance and I am not aware of any suggestion that this woman has ever brought alcohol into school or arrived at work whilst under the influence.

What example does this set the school children that this kind of behaviour is acceptable and you can keep your job?

The example was set when she was sentenced - the children now know exactly what penalties will be handed out by the courts to those who engage in such behaviour.

 

[John]

The two cases are fundamentally different.

Your example involves an illegal substance and so the school could reasonably take the view that there is a risk of some of his packets of cocaine being brought onto the premises and supplied to pupils. On the other hand, the drink driving case involves illegal use of a legal substance and I am not aware of any suggestion that this woman has ever brought alcohol into school or arrived at work whilst under the influence.

That's not what this is about. This is all to do with bringing the school into disrepute by demonstrating a poor example.

Let me just re-quote something you obviously didn't read.

Mr Evans denied that he was guilty of conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.

The example was set when she was sentenced - the children now know exactly what penalties will be handed out by the courts to those who engage in such behaviour.

They also know they can keep their job without worry. If they don't come down, there is little deterrent.

Exactly why society has so many problems with criminals as people can get away with lenient sentences.

If you are someone who is happy for known criminals to be in charge of a school, good luck to you.

I'm glad the reality is as this teacher almost certainly will be sacked.