159mph Copper back in court
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sh
No lights, no emergency he has just having a razzzzzz.
91mph in a 30mph! is not an appropriate speed for the road
and conditions. Thats if it's a true 30mph zone!
No lights, no emergency he has just having a razzzzzz.
91mph in a 30mph! is not an appropriate speed for the road
and conditions. Thats if it's a true 30mph zone!
Sucks to be him. Double jeopardy anyone?
I doubt he'll get convicted, I think they're just trying to close the case-law loop hole that might have been established in the first trial. I understand that they let him off as he was a highly trained driver, which is asking for trouble.
Pity really, because prosecution should be on a basis of ability! I know a load of people who would be quite safe doing the ton on motorways. And by that token, I know a load of people who would be dangerous at 30mph!
I doubt he'll get convicted, I think they're just trying to close the case-law loop hole that might have been established in the first trial. I understand that they let him off as he was a highly trained driver, which is asking for trouble.
Pity really, because prosecution should be on a basis of ability! I know a load of people who would be quite safe doing the ton on motorways. And by that token, I know a load of people who would be dangerous at 30mph!
There's no case law loophole as I understand it - it's just that the DJ in the original trial failed to properly ascertain the facts of whether he was driving dangerously or not. Simple as that - the facts need to be presented, recorded, tested and then balanced against the test of dangerous driving.
For people here to state blithely whether something is clearly safe or not, is exactly the point the the legal system tries to avoid:- the test of dangerous driving is whether the driving fell far below the standard required and whether it would have been obvious to a careful and competent driver, in full knowledge of all the circumstances, that the driving was dangerous. (The appeal court ruled that his advanced skills and training were not relevant to the circumstances, and it is only the manner of his driving which is important to the test.)
I would suggest that most people posting here do not know what all the circumstances are for this case. And I dare say quite a few aren't careful and competent drivers as defined in law...
For people here to state blithely whether something is clearly safe or not, is exactly the point the the legal system tries to avoid:- the test of dangerous driving is whether the driving fell far below the standard required and whether it would have been obvious to a careful and competent driver, in full knowledge of all the circumstances, that the driving was dangerous. (The appeal court ruled that his advanced skills and training were not relevant to the circumstances, and it is only the manner of his driving which is important to the test.)
I would suggest that most people posting here do not know what all the circumstances are for this case. And I dare say quite a few aren't careful and competent drivers as defined in law...
Also interesting that..... "Pat Sullivan, prosecuting, admitted there had been some dispute over the speeds the camera had recorded but added: "The prosecution say broadly these (speeds) are accurate and we can use them as a guide.""
Well if the speeds were disputed here, then they must be disputed when they are catching other people speeding right?!?!
Well if the speeds were disputed here, then they must be disputed when they are catching other people speeding right?!?!
tigger1 said:
Interesting that he "denies speeding" (quote from bbc) - even though there's apparently video of him doing "eye-watering speeds".
Right or wrong to do those speeds is another question, but to deny speeding seems a bit cheeky!
Right or wrong to do those speeds is another question, but to deny speeding seems a bit cheeky!
I think it's a denial of the offence fo speeding, as in if you are using a lawful exemption it isn't speeding.
vonhosen said:
tigger1 said:
Interesting that he "denies speeding" (quote from bbc) - even though there's apparently video of him doing "eye-watering speeds".
Right or wrong to do those speeds is another question, but to deny speeding seems a bit cheeky!
Right or wrong to do those speeds is another question, but to deny speeding seems a bit cheeky!
I think it's a denial of the offence fo speeding, as in if you are using a lawful exemption it isn't speeding.
And he's been acquitted of it. He faces dangerous driving.
"Pc Milton was travelling at eye watering speeds," he said. "There had not been an accident, but there might well have been."
Well that is helpful. I had a cup of coffee earlier, It was poured into a small vessel by hand at approx 86 deg' Celsius. If it had gone over my hand it could have caused a serious burn. It didn't though. But might well have done so from now on I will wait till the kettle has cooled to 55 Cecius and pour it using oven gloves and salad tongs.
Well that is helpful. I had a cup of coffee earlier, It was poured into a small vessel by hand at approx 86 deg' Celsius. If it had gone over my hand it could have caused a serious burn. It didn't though. But might well have done so from now on I will wait till the kettle has cooled to 55 Cecius and pour it using oven gloves and salad tongs.
7db said:
There's no case law loophole as I understand it - it's just that the DJ in the original trial failed to properly ascertain the facts of whether he was driving dangerously or not.
My recollection of the original case is that PC Milton was acquitted on the basis of his abilities as a Police driver rendering his speed no longer "highly inappropriate for the prevailing road or traffic conditions" (which is quoted as an example of Dangerous Driving in CPS charging practice). In fact I believe that the Stipe covering the case (District Judge Bruce Morgan) cited PC Milton being the "creme de la creme" of police drivers. Is this not the case, and were the DJ's remarks taken out of context? If that was the decision of the court and if the decision was allowed to stand, would that not create a valid defence in future cases?
You can read the ruling here
DPP v Mark Scott Milton
The exemption for speeding comes from the Police purpose, ability has nothing to do with it.
The original judges mistakes centred around his judgement in the dangerous driving offence.
DPP v Mark Scott Milton
The exemption for speeding comes from the Police purpose, ability has nothing to do with it.
The original judges mistakes centred around his judgement in the dangerous driving offence.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 21st August 17:36
Safe Speed issued the following Press Briefing yesterday:
PR347: PC Mark Milton - the 159mph cop - press briefing
news: for immediate release and detailed press briefing
PC Mark Milton's speeding case will be heard again by Magistrates on Monday. He
was previously acquitted by magistrates, but on appeal the verdict was
overturned and the case sent back to the magistrates to be heard again.
Safe Speed believes that either verdict will be damaging.
Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "It is a tragedy that this case rumbles on.
Whatever the verdict, the world will change slightly for the worse. If
Mark Milton is found guilty, Police driving and response will be compromised.
If Mark Milton is found not guilty, public confidence in the Police will be
damaged."
<ends>
Press briefing on the key issues:
=================================
Issue 1: Is 159mph automatically dangerous?
Unlike the other issues, this one has a clear and certain answer. 159mph is
NOT automatically dangerous. If we accept a) 'dangerous' is a relative term
and b) 159mph would not be particularly dangerous on a closed test track in a
suitable vehicle, then the question really becomes: is the environment safe
enough to support a speed of 159mph? This is the real issue.
It's easy to make the mistake of comparing the safety of say 70mph to 159mph
in some unusual circumstance and conclude that 159mph must be relatively more
dangerous. For example the argument might go: 'But what if you had a tyre
failure? Wouldn't 159mph be "more dangerous" than 70mph? But a tyre failure at
70mph is potentially extremely dangerous - yet we choose to accept that danger
as part of our normal lives. The increase in danger at 159mph isn't that
great. It's real but it's rare and unusual. The real danger of speed arises
when the speed is unsuitable for the environment. So actually we'd be asking
entirely the wrong question.
Safe driving at any speed involves ensuring that the speed is suitable for the
environment. A failure to do this increases danger very markedly, and we would
correctly term the speed: "dangerous". One vital test of the safety of a speed
is to ask if it is possible to stop within the space that the driver knows to
be clear.
It's entirely possible for 15mph to be murderously fast, for example in a
crowded market street, and equally it's possible for 159mph to carry no
special risk and to be properly termed 'safe'.
A driver's primary responsibility to safety is to ensure that his speed is
appropriate to the environment.
Imagine, for example, driving faster and faster round a bend. At some speed -
a speed which is too fast for the bend - a crash becomes inevitable. We're no
longer talking about a once-in-a-lifetime tyre failure - we're talking about a
certain crash. The risk due to speed suddenly went off the scale. That's an
example of what it really means to drive 'too fast'.
Issue 2: Was 159mph on the M54 dangerous?
There might be information on the video to prove that actual danger was
present, but it doesn't seem very likely since PC Milton has already been
acquitted in another court. Any clear case of danger should have been picked
up by the previous court.
The motorway was probably deserted at the time when the highest speeds were
achieved and PC Milton would have slowed down if other road users had been
present. Or at least we hope so and expect so.
But to drive safely, you must be able to stop within the distance that you can
see to be clear. Since it was apparently dark at the time, we have to ask if
the headlights were sufficient to see a clear space ahead. It's unusual for
factory-fit main beam headlights to support speeds above about 120mph.
Issue 3: Was 80mph in a 30mph speed limit dangerous?
We don't know. It's easy to picture racing through crowded town streets, but
the reality may have been very different. Imagine leave a town area and
accelerating to 80mph just before the national speed limit signs in an
entirely rural and deserted setting. For a skilled Police driver, such a speed
could be safe, routine and entirely unremarkable.
So once again, the safety of the behaviour is entirely governed by the
circumstances.
Issue 4: Do we need the Police to be free to travel at high speeds?
Absolutely. We need officers to attend incidents as soon as safely possible.
They are trained to drive quickly and safely. Sometimes rapid response will be
a matter of life and death.
Issue 5: Is it one rule for them and another for us?
Yes. As a simple matter of fact it is. Section 87 of the Road traffic
Regulation Act 1984 grants emergency services an exemption from speed limits
under certain broadly defined circumstances.
But importantly we expect equal treatment despite the fact that the rules are
different. We expect similar degrees of discretion to be afforded to the
public and to Police officers. It's an inequality of discretion that threatens
the Police / public relationship. Read on.
Issue 6: What about the Police / public relationship?
These issues seriously threaten the good Police / public relationship because
of the different way in which discretion is applied to prosecutions. The
Public perception is that the Police receive far too much discretion, while
the public don't receive anywhere near enough.
The serious ongoing damage to the Police / public relationship is founded in
millions of unnecessary speeding prosecutions - motorists prosecuted for minor
speeding offences on occasions when they know with confidence that they were
driving safely. Stories of apparently 'extreme' Police behaviour is like a
twist of the knife.
Issue 7: What are the consequences of finding Mark Milton Guilty?
If Mark Milton is found guilty the major consequences will be as follows:
- There will be further restrictions and rules applying to Police driving.
This will cost lives because Police will take longer to arrive and will be
worrying about compliance when they should be worrying about safety.
- These restrictions will probably extend to high speed training. Effectively
the Police will in time become less skilled.
- The case will be used to further present and confirm the false 'speed is
dangerous' case that is frequently made. The truth is that speed is only
dangerous when it is also inappropriate. We MUST focus road safety efforts on
achieving appropriate speeds not legal speeds. It would be simple if the two
were the same, but they are not.
- If the Police are given their own speed limits as a consequence, criminals
will only need to drive a few miles per hour faster than the Police speed limit
to escape.
Issue 8: What are the consequences of finding Mark Milton innocent?
If Mark Milton is found innocent further damage will be done to the Police /
public relationship, with the following major effects:
- the 'them and us' culture will be extended.
- less reporting of crime
- Police road safety messages won't be trusted as much
- Police won't be trusted as much
<ends>
PR347: PC Mark Milton - the 159mph cop - press briefing
news: for immediate release and detailed press briefing
PC Mark Milton's speeding case will be heard again by Magistrates on Monday. He
was previously acquitted by magistrates, but on appeal the verdict was
overturned and the case sent back to the magistrates to be heard again.
Safe Speed believes that either verdict will be damaging.
Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "It is a tragedy that this case rumbles on.
Whatever the verdict, the world will change slightly for the worse. If
Mark Milton is found guilty, Police driving and response will be compromised.
If Mark Milton is found not guilty, public confidence in the Police will be
damaged."
<ends>
Press briefing on the key issues:
=================================
Issue 1: Is 159mph automatically dangerous?
Unlike the other issues, this one has a clear and certain answer. 159mph is
NOT automatically dangerous. If we accept a) 'dangerous' is a relative term
and b) 159mph would not be particularly dangerous on a closed test track in a
suitable vehicle, then the question really becomes: is the environment safe
enough to support a speed of 159mph? This is the real issue.
It's easy to make the mistake of comparing the safety of say 70mph to 159mph
in some unusual circumstance and conclude that 159mph must be relatively more
dangerous. For example the argument might go: 'But what if you had a tyre
failure? Wouldn't 159mph be "more dangerous" than 70mph? But a tyre failure at
70mph is potentially extremely dangerous - yet we choose to accept that danger
as part of our normal lives. The increase in danger at 159mph isn't that
great. It's real but it's rare and unusual. The real danger of speed arises
when the speed is unsuitable for the environment. So actually we'd be asking
entirely the wrong question.
Safe driving at any speed involves ensuring that the speed is suitable for the
environment. A failure to do this increases danger very markedly, and we would
correctly term the speed: "dangerous". One vital test of the safety of a speed
is to ask if it is possible to stop within the space that the driver knows to
be clear.
It's entirely possible for 15mph to be murderously fast, for example in a
crowded market street, and equally it's possible for 159mph to carry no
special risk and to be properly termed 'safe'.
A driver's primary responsibility to safety is to ensure that his speed is
appropriate to the environment.
Imagine, for example, driving faster and faster round a bend. At some speed -
a speed which is too fast for the bend - a crash becomes inevitable. We're no
longer talking about a once-in-a-lifetime tyre failure - we're talking about a
certain crash. The risk due to speed suddenly went off the scale. That's an
example of what it really means to drive 'too fast'.
Issue 2: Was 159mph on the M54 dangerous?
There might be information on the video to prove that actual danger was
present, but it doesn't seem very likely since PC Milton has already been
acquitted in another court. Any clear case of danger should have been picked
up by the previous court.
The motorway was probably deserted at the time when the highest speeds were
achieved and PC Milton would have slowed down if other road users had been
present. Or at least we hope so and expect so.
But to drive safely, you must be able to stop within the distance that you can
see to be clear. Since it was apparently dark at the time, we have to ask if
the headlights were sufficient to see a clear space ahead. It's unusual for
factory-fit main beam headlights to support speeds above about 120mph.
Issue 3: Was 80mph in a 30mph speed limit dangerous?
We don't know. It's easy to picture racing through crowded town streets, but
the reality may have been very different. Imagine leave a town area and
accelerating to 80mph just before the national speed limit signs in an
entirely rural and deserted setting. For a skilled Police driver, such a speed
could be safe, routine and entirely unremarkable.
So once again, the safety of the behaviour is entirely governed by the
circumstances.
Issue 4: Do we need the Police to be free to travel at high speeds?
Absolutely. We need officers to attend incidents as soon as safely possible.
They are trained to drive quickly and safely. Sometimes rapid response will be
a matter of life and death.
Issue 5: Is it one rule for them and another for us?
Yes. As a simple matter of fact it is. Section 87 of the Road traffic
Regulation Act 1984 grants emergency services an exemption from speed limits
under certain broadly defined circumstances.
But importantly we expect equal treatment despite the fact that the rules are
different. We expect similar degrees of discretion to be afforded to the
public and to Police officers. It's an inequality of discretion that threatens
the Police / public relationship. Read on.
Issue 6: What about the Police / public relationship?
These issues seriously threaten the good Police / public relationship because
of the different way in which discretion is applied to prosecutions. The
Public perception is that the Police receive far too much discretion, while
the public don't receive anywhere near enough.
The serious ongoing damage to the Police / public relationship is founded in
millions of unnecessary speeding prosecutions - motorists prosecuted for minor
speeding offences on occasions when they know with confidence that they were
driving safely. Stories of apparently 'extreme' Police behaviour is like a
twist of the knife.
Issue 7: What are the consequences of finding Mark Milton Guilty?
If Mark Milton is found guilty the major consequences will be as follows:
- There will be further restrictions and rules applying to Police driving.
This will cost lives because Police will take longer to arrive and will be
worrying about compliance when they should be worrying about safety.
- These restrictions will probably extend to high speed training. Effectively
the Police will in time become less skilled.
- The case will be used to further present and confirm the false 'speed is
dangerous' case that is frequently made. The truth is that speed is only
dangerous when it is also inappropriate. We MUST focus road safety efforts on
achieving appropriate speeds not legal speeds. It would be simple if the two
were the same, but they are not.
- If the Police are given their own speed limits as a consequence, criminals
will only need to drive a few miles per hour faster than the Police speed limit
to escape.
Issue 8: What are the consequences of finding Mark Milton innocent?
If Mark Milton is found innocent further damage will be done to the Police /
public relationship, with the following major effects:
- the 'them and us' culture will be extended.
- less reporting of crime
- Police road safety messages won't be trusted as much
- Police won't be trusted as much
<ends>
vonhosen said:
The exemption for speeding comes from the Police purpose, ability has nothing to do with it.
I must confess that in itself is a rather scary prospect to me.. I have no problems with highly trained officers blatting around in pursuits etc.. but to have any officer in a car on a police purpose screaming round the place???
vonhosen said:
You can read the ruling here
DPP v Mark Scott Milton
The exemption for speeding comes from the Police purpose, ability has nothing to do with it.
The original judges mistakes centred around his judgement in the dangerous driving offence.
DPP v Mark Scott Milton
The exemption for speeding comes from the Police purpose, ability has nothing to do with it.
The original judges mistakes centred around his judgement in the dangerous driving offence.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 21st August 17:36
My reading of that (45-50) is where the rubber hits the road is that
i) You can't drive more dangerously just because you are a good driver. The DJ said you could and so was wrong in law. This is Andrew's loophole above. The appeals judge makes direct reference to not "opening the floodgates" of a potential defence of "it wasn't dangerous cos I'm advanced).
ii) The DJ didn't examine the facts of the driving closely enough to establish whether the driving was subjectively dangerous.
vonhosen said:
You can read the ruling here
DPP v Mark Scott Milton
The exemption for speeding comes from the Police purpose, ability has nothing to do with it.
The original judges mistakes centred around his judgement in the dangerous driving offence.
Thanks Von. Seems he wasn't acquitted on ability, although a lot of the talk seems to be about it. I'll need to read it some more. DPP v Mark Scott Milton
The exemption for speeding comes from the Police purpose, ability has nothing to do with it.
The original judges mistakes centred around his judgement in the dangerous driving offence.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 21st August 17:36
But in the meantime, this little chestnut caught my eye;
the Transcript said:
He was given a Vauxhall Vectra 3.2 vehicle to use. This is apparently capable of speeds and acceleration most of us would associate with top of the range Italian sports cars.
That's a pretty special Vectra!jasandjules said:
vonhosen said:
The exemption for speeding comes from the Police purpose, ability has nothing to do with it.
I must confess that in itself is a rather scary prospect to me.. I have no problems with highly trained officers blatting around in pursuits etc.. but to have any officer in a car on a police purpose screaming round the place???
Whilst it's true that currently the law makes no stipulation that the driver has to receive enhanced training (although that is being changed under the road safety bill) the Police regulations do not allow any Police officer to use exemptions without receiving enhanced training.
As this is written into standard operating proccedures & driving regulations, any driver who hasn't received the training & breaches them, may find themselves prosecuted criminally as well as being disciplined.
Paul - on a point of fact for your release, it's not his speeding case that is being heard, it's a dangerous driving case. He's been acquitted of speeding, and the appeal denied.
Your issue 5 is slightly misleading because of its speeding focus. In fact the rules for dangerous driving are identical for them and for us, and it is partly on point this that the appeal sent the case back to the mag's court. In fact it's revealing that dangerous driving can be because the driver is incapcitated (tired, drunk), but not excused if he is highly skilled, and that "dangerous" could refer to both the manner of driving in the circumstances and the state of the vehicle being driven.
You haven't mentioned the Crown's view in the appeal that:-
"a competent and careful driver will not exceed the relevant speed limits, at least not materially so. This is because the competent and careful driver would, at least should, objectively, recognise that speed limits are set at the maximum speed up to which, depending on the conditions, one should safely drive. To drive a little above the limit will, or may, not per se be dangerous driving in the sense that it would not fall far below what is to be expected of a competent and careful driver."
I'd have thought you could make something from that.
Your issue 5 is slightly misleading because of its speeding focus. In fact the rules for dangerous driving are identical for them and for us, and it is partly on point this that the appeal sent the case back to the mag's court. In fact it's revealing that dangerous driving can be because the driver is incapcitated (tired, drunk), but not excused if he is highly skilled, and that "dangerous" could refer to both the manner of driving in the circumstances and the state of the vehicle being driven.
You haven't mentioned the Crown's view in the appeal that:-
"a competent and careful driver will not exceed the relevant speed limits, at least not materially so. This is because the competent and careful driver would, at least should, objectively, recognise that speed limits are set at the maximum speed up to which, depending on the conditions, one should safely drive. To drive a little above the limit will, or may, not per se be dangerous driving in the sense that it would not fall far below what is to be expected of a competent and careful driver."
I'd have thought you could make something from that.
7db said:
My reading of that (45-50) is where the rubber hits the road is that
i) You can't drive more dangerously just because you are a good driver. The DJ said you could and so was wrong in law. [...]
i) You can't drive more dangerously just because you are a good driver. The DJ said you could and so was wrong in law. [...]
I think that part of the judgement exposes a shortfall in their understanding of the driving process. For example a bend that would be dangerous to a novice at 40mph might be safe to a skilled driver at 60mph. A novice making particular overtake might be trusting to luck, while the exact same move by a skilled driver might be perfectly safe.
Safe driving plans hinge absolutely on what a driver knows (about the vehicle, about the road, about his own skills and so on.)
'Dangerous driving' is usually the result of a serious attitude shortfall, while 'careless driving' is usually the result of a skills shortfall.
7db said:
the test of dangerous driving is whether the driving fell far below the standard required and whether it would have been obvious to a careful and competent driver, in full knowledge of all the circumstances, that the driving was dangerous. (The appeal court ruled that his advanced skills and training were not relevant to the circumstances, and it is only the manner of his driving which is important to the test.)
Do you mean that the test is whether it would have been obvious to a careful and competent driver with normal training and skills that it would have been dangerous for somebody with normal skills and training to drive like that?
Surely it matters who's opinion you're considering, but also who the driver is that they're forming an opinion about.
From the way you've described it, it seems almost as if a skilled trained driver driving safely could be deemed to be dangerous because it would have been dangerous for somebody without their training and skills to drive like that.
7db said:
Paul - on a point of fact for your release, it's not his speeding case that is being heard, it's a dangerous driving case. He's been acquitted of speeding, and the appeal denied.
Yeah I know. I noticed that immediately after it had gone.
Still, It's in the 'throw away' 'wrapper' part of the release. 7db said:
Your issue 5 is slightly misleading because of its speeding focus. In fact the rules for dangerous driving are identical for them and for us, and it is partly on point this that the appeal sent the case back to the mag's court. In fact it's revealing that dangerous driving can be because the driver is incapcitated (tired, drunk), but not excused if he is highly skilled, and that "dangerous" could refer to both the manner of driving in the circumstances and the state of the vehicle being driven.
You haven't mentioned the Crown's view in the appeal that:-
"a competent and careful driver will not exceed the relevant speed limits, at least not materially so. This is because the competent and careful driver would, at least should, objectively, recognise that speed limits are set at the maximum speed up to which, depending on the conditions, one should safely drive. To drive a little above the limit will, or may, not per se be dangerous driving in the sense that it would not fall far below what is to be expected of a competent and careful driver."
I'd have thought you could make something from that.
You haven't mentioned the Crown's view in the appeal that:-
"a competent and careful driver will not exceed the relevant speed limits, at least not materially so. This is because the competent and careful driver would, at least should, objectively, recognise that speed limits are set at the maximum speed up to which, depending on the conditions, one should safely drive. To drive a little above the limit will, or may, not per se be dangerous driving in the sense that it would not fall far below what is to be expected of a competent and careful driver."
I'd have thought you could make something from that.
Yeah. You're right on those points. Actually it's rehashed from an earlier release while speeding was still part of the case.
GreenV8S said:
7db said:
the test of dangerous driving is whether the driving fell far below the standard required and whether it would have been obvious to a careful and competent driver, in full knowledge of all the circumstances, that the driving was dangerous. (The appeal court ruled that his advanced skills and training were not relevant to the circumstances, and it is only the manner of his driving which is important to the test.)
Do you mean that the test is whether it would have been obvious to a careful and competent driver with normal training and skills that it would have been dangerous for somebody with normal skills and training to drive like that?
Surely it matters who's opinion you're considering, but also who the driver is that they're forming an opinion about.
From the way you've described it, it seems almost as if a skilled trained driver driving safely could be deemed to be dangerous because it would have been dangerous for somebody without their training and skills to drive like that.
Greenie - the law as it stands is that the test for dangerous driving is wholly objective. ie that it does not depend on who is behind the wheel, their skills or attitudes, just the manner of their driving and all the other attendant circumstances. The test is that of a careful and competent driver, which is often taken by the court to be a ADI for giving of evidence, but means that it is also technically accessible to the jury (if there is one).
If a highly skilled driver drives in a matter which is dangerous if it were exhibited by a novice driver, then the offence is complete. I think the difference would be in any particular individual case for the highly skilled driver to show that his high level of skill was percievable through the manner of his driving, not just the level of his training...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff