Champion jockey Oisin Murphy fined £70,000 after admitting drink-driving
Murphy, 29, of Beales Farm Road, Lambourn, Hungerford, was also banned from driving for a period of 20 months at Reading Magistrates' Court on Thursday after he pleaded guilty to one count of driving a motor vehicle while over the prescribed limit of alcohol.
He was charged by postal requisition on June 19 after he drove his grey Mercedes A Class off the road and into a tree in Hermitage, Berkshire, at about 12.05am on April 27.
He had a passenger with him at the time, who was the owner of the car, the court heard. They were both taken to hospital after the crash.
Murphy was later discharged to take a breathalyser test at a police station at about 7am, which showed a reading of 66mg per 100 millilitres of breath.
This meant he was 'just shy of twice above the drink-driving limit' at the time of driving, prosecutor Richard Atkins told the court.
Sporting a dark blue suit, white shirt and tie, Murphy only spoke to confirm his name, date of birth, and address, before entering his guilty plea.
Judge Sam Goozee, sentencing, told Murphy: 'You are lucky that neither you, your passenger, or the public were injured by your actions.
'I do balance that with the remorse you have shown for your actions.
'You have also recognised that you have let the public down by virtue of your actions, and your colleagues in the racing world.'
Murphy's defence barrister Alex Di Francesco offered the court an apology on behalf of his client.
Mr Di Francesco said: 'He wants to apologise, first to his passenger, to the public and other road users… and he wants to apologise to those whom he works alongside with.'
Murphy received a £70,000 fine, with a £2,000 surcharge and £85 in costs.
The figure was calculated based on his annual earnings, which the court heard are in the region of £250,000 a year, in addition to a weekly salary of £1,250.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
6 hours ago
- Business Insider
US court clears deportation of 8 migrants to South Sudan despite legal fight
Eight migrants are now set to be deported to South Sudan after a US court denied their final legal bid to remain in the United States, following a series of emergency court proceedings held during the Independence Day holiday. A US judge has denied the final legal attempt to stop the deportation of eight migrants to South Sudan The migrants' attorneys argued that deporting them to volatile South Sudan constitutes unconstitutional punishment given the country's ongoing instability. The deportations align with a broader immigration policy expansion initiated during the Trump administration targeting repatriations to conflict zones. South Sudan is currently plagued by political unrest and violent conflict, prompting international warnings against travel to the region. The decision came on Friday, July 4, after U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy ruled that he was bound by a recent Supreme Court order, which had earlier clarified that the Department of Homeland Security could no longer be barred from deporting the men. The ruling effectively ended the migrants' last-ditch effort to stop the deportation, allowing the U.S. government to proceed with its scheduled transfer of the individuals to South Sudan at 7:00 p.m. Eastern Time the same day. Lawyers representing the migrants had argued that deporting them to South Sudan, a country long plagued by violent conflict and political instability amounted to unconstitutional punishment, especially since some had already served criminal sentences in the U.S. However, Judge Murphy ruled that their claims were 'substantially similar' to previous ones he had already rejected. Before the ruling in Boston, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss in Washington briefly paused the deportation effort earlier that afternoon. But he ultimately returned the matter to Murphy, who affirmed that the Supreme Court's guidance left him no legal ground to intervene. Jennie Pasquarella, an attorney with the Seattle Clemency Project who represented the men, expressed disappointment with the outcome. ' Both courts' decisions today have denied them their opportunity to have these claims heard and to protect their own lives,' she said. ' That is what is so tragic about where we came out. ' Trump's third‑country deportations Trump's third-country deportation policy began in his first term with deals to send asylum seekers to Central American nations like Guatemala, even if they weren't from there. In his second term, the policy expanded to include deportations to conflict zones like South Sudan and Libya. These moves targeted migrants whose home countries refused repatriation. Critics argue the policy violates due process and international law, while the Supreme Court has allowed it to proceed, marking a sharp turn toward harsher immigration enforcement. South Sudan, the destination for the deportation, remains volatile. The U.S. State Department currently warns against travel to the country due to armed conflict and high levels of violent crime. The United Nations has also cautioned that the region's unresolved political tensions risk reigniting a devastating civil war that formally ended in 2018. The Department of Homeland Security has stated that the migrants who come from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Burma, Sudan, and Vietnam include individuals previously convicted of serious crimes, with four convicted of murder. A Department of Justice lawyer, Hashim Mooppan, warned during Friday's hearing that halting such deportations could harm diplomatic relations and discourage other countries from accepting U.S. deportees in the future. This case marks another chapter in the broader legal battle surrounding the Trump administration's controversial immigration policies, particularly those targeting individuals for deportation to unstable or dangerous regions.
19 hours ago
As clock ticks down, judge pauses removal of 8 migrants detained in Djibouti
A day after the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for the Trump administration to complete the removal of eight migrants currently detained in the African nation of Djibouti, a federal judge temporarily paused their removal Friday, setting off a race against time before the men were scheduled to be placed on a flight to South Sudan Friday evening. The migrants, who were convicted in the United States of violent crimes, were given notices of removal and placed on a flight from the U.S. to the East African country of South Sudan in May -- but after U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy blocked the administration's attempt to deport the group without giving them a sufficient chance to contest their removal, the group disembarked in Djibouti, where they are currently detained in a U.S. military facility in legal limbo. In an unsigned opinion on Thursday, the Supreme Court explained that since it lifted Judge Murphy's due process requirements for third-country removals last month, the government can no longer be held to account for allegedly violating the requirements, clearing the way for the administration to remove them to South Sudan -- a country with which the men have no ties. On Friday afternoon, hours before the men were scheduled to board a plane for South Sudan, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss issued an administrative stay in a new case filed on behalf of the eight men. "We are not seeking to challenge a removal order," an attorney representing the men said at a hearing Friday in Washington, D.C. "We are seeking to challenge the act of sending petitioners to a place where they may be tortured, harmed or definitely imprisoned." Judge Moss ordered the stay to allow the parties to seek relief from the District of Massachusetts, where Judge Murphy made his original ruling, and where judge Moss said he said he would transfer the case. Attorneys representing the government said they would immediately seek relief from the Supreme Court. Justice Department lawyers claimed during Friday's hearing that they had spoken with State Department officials during the break and that they had received assurance from South Sudan that upon their deportation there, the men would be granted an immigration status "in accordance with South Sudan's national laws and immigration procedures" that would allow them to remain in the country "temporarily." But the lawyers did not have any information about whether or not they would be detained. "We certainly haven't asked for them to be detained, and our understanding is that there's no reason to think that they will be, but that last part is obviously speculation," a DOJ lawyer said. Judge Moss echoed the plaintiffs' lawyers concerns that the men could face torture and be harmed if they were deported to South Sudan. "I think, like all of us, I do not want to see anything happen to any of these plaintiffs in this case, or to anybody involving violent acts or bodily harm or anything of that nature," the judge said. "Obviously it goes without saying that even when somebody has been convicted of having committed a terrible crime, after that person has served their sentence for it, our government, nor anybody else should be in the business of inflicting pain and suffering on other human beings, simply for the sake of doing so." "And I think it seems to me almost self evident that the United States government cannot take human beings and send them to circumstances in which their physical well-being is at risk simply either to punish them or to send a signal to others that if you come into the country and commit a crime, not only are you going to get prosecuted in the United States for that, but you're going to be sent to some horrible situation," he said.
Politico
21 hours ago
- Politico
Judge briefly pauses Trump administration's July 4 bid to deport 8 men to South Sudan
But Moss said it appeared the men had served their criminal sentences, so the U.S. government shouldn't be trying to inflict punishment on them at this point. That is the central claim in the suit filed Thursday night: that deporting the eight to South Sudan amounts to additional punishment. Moss said he wasn't reaching any legal conclusions about that, but he said he had 'grave concerns about some of the issues' raised by lawyers for the men. 'It's almost self-evident that the United States government cannot take human beings and send them to circumstances where their physical well being is at risk simply to punish them or to send a signal to others,' Moss said. Moss also noted that the State Department has a public 'do not travel' warning for South Sudan. 'It does appear that placing people in South Sudan does pose or could pose significant risk to their safety,' he said. However, the judge ultimately concluded that the Supreme Court's recent actions impacting the men in the litigation underway in Boston meant their claims should be heard there and not in the Washington court. 'I do believe that the cases should be handled in a single case instead of multiple cases around the country,' Moss said. The eight men have been marooned in Djibouti since May, when a federal judge in Boston — U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy — halted their deportation to South Sudan, concluding that the move violated an order he'd issued requiring advance notice and a 'meaningful' chance to object before people being deported from the U.S. are sent to countries where they have no previous ties. Murphy also halted an earlier attempt to send the men to Libya. They have been living in a shipping container for nearly six weeks waiting for resolution from the courts, though Murphy allowed the administration to relocate them to any other U.S. facility — or back to the mainland — so long as they remained in American custody. While the men and several U.S. immigration officers guarding them remained at Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti, the Trump administration also fought a court battle against Murphy's orders. Last week, the Supreme Court blocked Murphy's broad, nationwide order requiring certain steps before third-country deportations. And on Thursday, the justices voided separate orders the Biden appointee issued regarding the eight men. However, in neither instance did the high court's majority explain its concern about Murphy's original order, leaving lawyers to speculate about whether the justices disagreed with his conclusions about the due process deportees are entitled to, whether the justices objected to the nationwide scope of his order or whether they harbored some other concern. During the hearings Friday, Moss repeatedly lamented the uncertainty left by the Supreme Court's rulings on the issue and said the public was left to 'read the tea leaves' in the high court's decisions. 'I don't know what to make of what the Supreme Court did because that is one of the downsides of the emergency docket,' the judge said. 'We just don't know which of those arguments the Supreme Court found convincing in ordering the relief it ordered.'
