A speeder from Peterhead faces losing his job as a mechanic after he was banned from driving again.
Joe Davidson, who has previously been disqualified, was caught by police on August 12 last year speeding through Peterhead.
At the time, the 23-year-old held only a provisional licence and had no insurance on the car, a black Skoda Octavia.
At Peterhead Sheriff Court on Friday, his solicitor claimed he now faced losing not only his driving privileges, but also his job.
‘Talking about how punctual he is?’
Fiscal depute Claire Stewart told the court that officers collared Davidson at about 11.10am after following him when he made his way through Ugie Street and Wilson Street.
They witnessed him travelling at speed and failing to slow down when taking a left-hand turn into a nearby business.
His defence solicitor, Sam Milligan, said the property where he eventually came to a stop was where Davidson worked and provided a letter from his boss.
On being handed the note, Sheriff Craig Findlater, who made reference to Davidson’s previous convictions and “number of periods of disqualification”, commented: “Talking about how punctual he is?”
Mr Milligan continued: “The confirmation from the employer is that there’s a different level of maturity expressed.
“He sees the police, my lord, and he reacts in the fashion described. There has been no further offending since.”
He added that the career plan for Davidson, from his employer, was to train as an MOT tester.
“Depending on the extent of the disqualification, the employment may be in jeopardy,” Mr Milligan said.
Banned and fined
Upon hearing the facts of the case, Sheriff Findlater told Davidson to stand.
“I do see the very positive terms before me from your employer,” he said.
The sheriff went on to ban Davidson, of Ives Road, for four months and endorsed his licence with three penalty points.
Additionally, he also imposed a total fine of £400, which Davidson will pay back at the rate of £20 per week.
Sheriff Findlater added: “If you do not make these payments, you may be brought back to court to explain why that is.”