Supreme Court: Cars belonging to drunk drivers may be confiscated

print this

The Finnish Supreme Court issued decisions in two drink-driving cases yesterday, providing precedents for vehicle confiscation that are to be followed by lower courts in later cases.
      The precedents do not set out any automatic confiscation procedure, even though the drunk driver concerned owned his or her car. Drunk drivers lose their cars only in exceptional cases. A borrowed car, for example, cannot be confiscated.
     
The Supreme Court nevertheless stresses that the primary penalty for drunken driving is licence suspension. After previous DUI offences, a drunk driver may face car confiscation. Custodial sentences are also possible, particularly in aggravated cases or when there is personal injury.
      In effect, this means that repeat offenders are the main target. Repeated and frequent drunk driving as well as a strong likelihood of continued DUI are all prerequisites for car confiscation.
     
The first precedent of the Supreme Court applies to a case where a drunk driver lost his car to the State.
      A senior citizen in Central Finland was guilty of two aggravated DUI offences, and of driving without a licence in 2003. In addition to these crimes, he had a large number of earlier drink-driving offences.
      Lower courts had not imposed a forfeiture, but the Supreme Court ruled that his car is to be confiscated. The actual penalty included five months' imprisonment and licence suspension.
     
The second precedent involved a case where a drunk driver was allowed to keep his car.
      In this instance a man from Central Finland, living near Jyväskylä, had two previous DUI offences, the first ten years ago and the second 18 months ago. The Supreme Court ruled that it was not likely that he would repeat his offence, and he was allowed to keep his car. The actual penalty for his offence was 75 days' imprisonment - which was converted into 75 hours of community service - and licence suspension.
      The cars involved were a Saab 900 and an Opel Ascona, both dating from the beginning of the 1980s. According to the owners' estimates, the value of the cars was around EUR 1,000 each.
     
According to the penal code, a forfeiture can be exempted if the property forfeited is grossly disproportional to the gravity of the offence. For example, if the vehicle is valuable or a necessary means of transport to the vehicle owner.
      In its decision, the Supreme Court determined that the object of protection was traffic safety, and that it is a well-known fact that drink-driving impairs all aspects of road safety - life, health, and property.
      Consequently, if car confiscation is the only way to secure traffic safety, the personal aspects of an offender's private life might have to be overridden.


Previously in HS International Edition:
  Police suspend 33 driving licences in Helsinki region at weekend (7.3.2005)

Helsingin Sanomat