In ten years, I have only seen a 'suspended' prison sentence invoked once, and that was for a serious offence. We complain about this all the time, my cynical view is its a way for the courts to get 'a result' without adding to the prison population.
I don't think that's cynical at all, but realistic. Prisons are rather overcrowded, and I personally think that judges have been too keen to hand down custodial sentences for offences where community work would probably be more constructive and effective. Prisons are, for the most part, an expensive way of turning a petty criminal into a hardened one.
What purpose does prison serve? It's clearly not a deterrant (but nothing is, as no-one thinks they'll get caught).
IMO, it should be used to protect the public from dangerous people (particularly violent criminals) and to punish people for serious offences (not necessarily violent - large scale fraud for example). It should be a last resort rather than a first, and the whole focus of prison should be rehabilitation and the reduction of reoffending. It doesn't matter if they've got TV and other "soft" facilities. The loss of liberty
is the punishment; everything else should be geared towards returning them as useful members of society.
So, I don't think the suspended sentence should necessarily have been invoked in this case - I don't know enough to form an opinion on that.
Having said all of that, if someone is a persistent danger behind the wheel, they need a lifetime driving ban. This is something the courts hardly ever consider, as far as I can tell.
Sorry for the loser length post and the derail!