Stiffer speeding penalties for leading rideout. or not.
Discussion
jesta1865 said:
Yes they can, but if one of them shot and killed someone, you should not be able to prosecute them both for murder, and if you can't say for certain which one pulled the trigger then you have reasonable doubt surely. not a good thing, but its what our law is based on, innocent till proven guilty.
True,But, the bike case is more like both people fired a gun but one missed and one hit killing the target.
And the ballistics were inconclusive.
daz3210 said:
That is not corroboration in my view, it is ONE person making a judgement. The judgement being that he thinks Biker Two is travelling faster than Biker One. The fact that Biker One is above the limit is simply secondary information that he has used to interpret that Biker Two is above the limit.
The bikes would appear to be closer together the further down the road they went...jesta1865 said:
Yes they can, but if one of them shot and killed someone, you should not be able to prosecute them both for murder, and if you can't say for certain which one pulled the trigger then you have reasonable doubt surely. not a good thing, but its what our law is based on, innocent till proven guilty.
My understanding is that the holw point of the joint enterprise principle is that you can convict both. Though it may depend on whether the non shooter knew the other had a gun.daz3210 said:
pitmansboots said:
daz3210 said:
...
2. Evidence from Officer One that Biker Two was speeding, based on comparison with Biker One, but no corroboration.
There is corroboration.2. Evidence from Officer One that Biker Two was speeding, based on comparison with Biker One, but no corroboration.
Biker one is measured at 96mph. The officer's opinion is that biker 1 is speeding.
The officer's opinion is also that biker 2 is speeding. The officer has also witnessed that biker 2 is travelling faster or at least as fast as biker 1. Biker 1 is travelling at a minimum speed of 96mph...there's your sign! Biker 2 is travelling at a minimum speed of 96mph and it is corroborated by the speed measurement of biker 1.
The Magistrates' selection board may have been correct. No offence intended.
You may not like that idea however it is corrobboration none-the-less.
Nigel Worc's said:
98elise said:
I'm not sure why getting away with 96 in a 60 is a good result?
Do you believe them to be guilty or innocent?
Speed all you want, but be prepared to take it on the chin when you get caught.
Jesus wept, are you for real ?Do you believe them to be guilty or innocent?
Speed all you want, but be prepared to take it on the chin when you get caught.
Edited by 98elise on Thursday 26th April 06:27
If you cause damage or harm, take it on the chin, otherwise advise the enforcement cretins to get a life !
pitmansboots said:
The officer's opinion is that bike 2 is travelling in excess of the speed limit; he has corroborated that by comparing it to the speed of a vehicle at a known speed. That is corroboration. You may not like that idea however it is corroboration none-the-less.
what's your authority for that? i couldn't find one. the authorities in non-motorway cases all point to the laser speed meter (or radar/vascar/speedometer) being the corroborative 'witness' as required by s. 89.btw, the CPS doesn't have the option to appeal an acquittal to the crown court.
the reason given by the officer as to why he took one speed reading was that if he took a reading from the second biker then the 1st speed reading would be 'lost'. i.e. the Pro laser machine displays only the last reading taken.
Devil2575 said:
Nigel Worc's said:
98elise said:
I'm not sure why getting away with 96 in a 60 is a good result?
Do you believe them to be guilty or innocent?
Speed all you want, but be prepared to take it on the chin when you get caught.
Jesus wept, are you for real ?Do you believe them to be guilty or innocent?
Speed all you want, but be prepared to take it on the chin when you get caught.
Edited by 98elise on Thursday 26th April 06:27
If you cause damage or harm, take it on the chin, otherwise advise the enforcement cretins to get a life !
We do have a legal system in this country that doesn't convict willy-nilly.
Devil2575 said:
A predictable response. So you advocate that people drive/ride at whatever speed they wish and they are only brought to book when they cause an incident? Do you not think that this would result in a massive increase in incidents given that most people don't think it will ever happen to them until it does?
I would suggest that everyone who drives breaks a law every time they drive (for one reason or another) how would you suggest we deal with these millions of law breakers.voyds9 said:
I would suggest that everyone who drives breaks a law every time they drive (for one reason or another) how would you suggest we deal with these millions of law breakers.
How about an annual pre-emptive fine.People could show they have paid it by a pretty circular paper disc in the window.
Devil2575 said:
A predictable response. So you advocate that people drive/ride at whatever speed they wish and they are only brought to book when they cause an incident? Do you not think that this would result in a massive increase in incidents given that most people don't think it will ever happen to them until it does?
In before German Autobahns being mentioned 
Dr Jekyll said:
jesta1865 said:
Yes they can, but if one of them shot and killed someone, you should not be able to prosecute them both for murder, and if you can't say for certain which one pulled the trigger then you have reasonable doubt surely. not a good thing, but its what our law is based on, innocent till proven guilty.
My understanding is that the holw point of the joint enterprise principle is that you can convict both. Though it may depend on whether the non shooter knew the other had a gun.Snowboy said:
jesta1865 said:
Yes they can, but if one of them shot and killed someone, you should not be able to prosecute them both for murder, and if you can't say for certain which one pulled the trigger then you have reasonable doubt surely. not a good thing, but its what our law is based on, innocent till proven guilty.
True,But, the bike case is more like both people fired a gun but one missed and one hit killing the target.
And the ballistics were inconclusive.
The CPS seem to have had enough for a conviction, but they structured the case wrongly and left enough doubt for it to essentially collapse.
oddly its something i mention to my son about being guilty by association, he has some mates who have a 'reputation' with Bib, I just warn him to be careful as he doesn't know what's always going on etc.
mind he threw one of them out of his (new to him) car the other day as he tried to light up a fag, my son smokes (pillock) but won't in his own car
I guess its not a lot different to a bloke being incapable of standing through drink, but no breathyliser being available (unlikely I know).
By virtue of the fact he cannot stand up, would a conviction of being over the prescribed limit be safe?
Unless you have CONCLUSIVE evidence, a conviction surely cannot occur.
By virtue of the fact he cannot stand up, would a conviction of being over the prescribed limit be safe?
Unless you have CONCLUSIVE evidence, a conviction surely cannot occur.
agtlaw said:
pitmansboots said:
The officer's opinion is that bike 2 is travelling in excess of the speed limit; he has corroborated that by comparing it to the speed of a vehicle at a known speed. That is corroboration. You may not like that idea however it is corroboration none-the-less.
what's your authority for that? i couldn't find one. the authorities in non-motorway cases all point to the laser speed meter (or radar/vascar/speedometer) being the corroborative 'witness' as required by s. 89.If you witness 2 vehicles travelling at apparently the same speed and measure the speed of one; what say you of the speed of the second vehicle?
agtlaw said:
btw, the CPS doesn't have the option to appeal an acquittal to the crown court.
You are of course correct; a higher court judge may well consider the error of the Magistrates' decision though.agtlaw said:
the reason given by the officer as to why he took one speed reading was that if he took a reading from the second biker then the 1st speed reading would be 'lost'. i.e. the Pro laser machine displays only the last reading taken.
That was a mistake as the first reading need not be kept in the device.Breadvan72 said:
I am reminded of an exam question which went thus:-
Flopsy, Mopsy, Cottontail, and Peter agree to commit a robbery, and set off together to rob McGregor's Bank. Unbeknownst to all but Peter, he is carrying a gun. At the scene of the robbery, Peter pulls the gun and shoots dead Constable Pigling Bland, who has intervened to apprehend the robbers. Discuss the criminal liability of Flopsy, Mopsy, Cottontail, and Peter.
When I did jury service about 18 years ago, I did a similar case to this. The defendant was the getaway driver for an armed robbery of a post office. They claimed they only thought it was shop lifting of the attached shop (i.e. pinching a couple of bottles of champagne from the shelves).Flopsy, Mopsy, Cottontail, and Peter agree to commit a robbery, and set off together to rob McGregor's Bank. Unbeknownst to all but Peter, he is carrying a gun. At the scene of the robbery, Peter pulls the gun and shoots dead Constable Pigling Bland, who has intervened to apprehend the robbers. Discuss the criminal liability of Flopsy, Mopsy, Cottontail, and Peter.
The case got thrown out on the second day because one member of the jury tried chatting up the defendant in the evening.
voyds9 said:
Devil2575 said:
A predictable response. So you advocate that people drive/ride at whatever speed they wish and they are only brought to book when they cause an incident? Do you not think that this would result in a massive increase in incidents given that most people don't think it will ever happen to them until it does?
I would suggest that everyone who drives breaks a law every time they drive (for one reason or another) how would you suggest we deal with these millions of law breakers.
It would certainly reduce the traffic congestion
I's suggest that your assertion is incorrect, I drove to work this morning without breaking any laws.
When most people break the law these are small infactions, going slightly over a limit etc. 96mph is not a small infraction. My comment was in response to the line that people should only ever be prosecuted if they cause damage or injury, so someone should be able to do 150 mph and as long as they don't hit anyone it's ok. I disgaree.
Re Autobahns, how many unrestricted sections of road are there left in Germany now? It is also not the same as speeding down a winding A/B road is it.
Devil2575 said:
When most people break the law these are small infactions, going slightly over a limit etc. 96mph is not a small infraction. My comment was in response to the line that people should only ever be prosecuted if they cause damage or injury, so someone should be able to do 150 mph and as long as they don't hit anyone it's ok. I disgaree.
I think it was more 'as long as they don't endanger anyone...'.
The use of now commonplace technology as used during last summers looting spree could have recorded images of the riders, their leathers, the motorcycles and the location where they were stopped and perhaps have helped secure a conviction?
'Is that you?', 'Are those your leathers?', 'is that your helmet?', 'is that your motorcycle?' etc. etc.
Constabularies need to get with it when they routinely use CCTV footage from third parties to help with their enquiries.
'Is that you?', 'Are those your leathers?', 'is that your helmet?', 'is that your motorcycle?' etc. etc.
Constabularies need to get with it when they routinely use CCTV footage from third parties to help with their enquiries.
Edited by carinaman on Thursday 26th April 18:11
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff