Stiffer speeding penalties for leading rideout. or not.

[daz3210]

pitmansboots said:

Why do you need a specific authority for a reasonable fact?

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?

Because you are not talking bar-room convictions, but real life ones. Ones where good and proper evidence is needed in order to ensure any conviction is what is generally called 'safe'.

[jm doc]

Devil2575 said:

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.

Public execution

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.

So a small infraction is ok then? How small?? And I find it hard to believe that you never for one second of your trip to work today did not exceed the speed limit at any point in that journey by some increment for at least a second or two. (I am assumimg from your comment that you drove a car) I think something like 90% of people admit to speeding at some point. (though I cannot immediately source this)

[pitmansboots]

daz3210 said:

pitmansboots said:

Why do you need a specific authority for a reasonable fact?

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?

Because you are not talking bar-room convictions, but real life ones. Ones where good and proper evidence is needed in order to ensure any conviction is what is generally called 'safe'.

Ironic that you express a bar room opinion then.

[daz3210]

pitmansboots said:

daz3210 said:

pitmansboots said:

Why do you need a specific authority for a reasonable fact?

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?

Because you are not talking bar-room convictions, but real life ones. Ones where good and proper evidence is needed in order to ensure any conviction is what is generally called 'safe'.

Ironic that you express a bar room opinion then.

But its not a bar-room opinion is it? Its one that a court has seemingly agreed with by the sound of it.

[pitmansboots]

daz3210 said:

pitmansboots said:

daz3210 said:

pitmansboots said:

Why do you need a specific authority for a reasonable fact?

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?

Because you are not talking bar-room convictions, but real life ones. Ones where good and proper evidence is needed in order to ensure any conviction is what is generally called 'safe'.

Ironic that you express a bar room opinion then.

But its not a bar-room opinion is it? Its one that a court has seemingly agreed with by the sound of it.

No. It did not. The doubt seemed to be described by the OP as one of identification after it was already acknowledged that the 2 motorcyclists were driving in excess of the speed limit. The Magistrates' opinion seemed to change after they couldn't attribute each man to each motorcycle.
If they were both guilty of speeding; they were s described by the OP and accepted by the Magistrtes, then the minimum that they might reasonably have given is a guilty verdict for both with the minimum penalty applied. To acquit 2 guilty chaps because a specific degree of speed could not be attributed to each is absurd.
A good result for the motorcyclists but decided upon in error perhaps.
Maybe there is more to the story than is available here.
You appear to be still at the bar...the one with drinks not law books. Maybe I'm along side you too.

Edited by pitmansboots on Friday 27th April 08:44

[anonymous-user]

Beatrix Potter fans anxious to know the fate of the fierce bad rabbits may find assistance in the decision of the House of Lords in R v Powell (1997)

As Lord Mustill said:-

Throughout the modern history of the law on secondary criminal liability (at least of the type with which this appeal is concerned) the responsibility of the secondary defendant has been founded on his participation in a joint enterprise of which the commission of the crime by the principal offender formed part. Any doubts on this score were set at rest by Reg. v. Anderson; Reg. v. Morris [1966] 2 Q.B. 110 by reference to which countless juries have been directed over the years. As it seemed to me the House should not depart from this long-established principle without the strongest of reasons. The problem is to accommodate in the principle the foresight of the secondary party about what the main offender might do. Two aspects of this problem are simple. If S did not foresee what was actually done by P he is not liable for it, since it could not have been part of any joint enterprise. This is what the court decided in Reg. v. Anderson; Reg. v. Morris. Conversely, if S did foresee P's act this would always, as a matter of common sense, be relevant to the jury's decision on whether it formed part of a course of action to which both S and P agreed, albeit often on the basis that the action would be taken if particular circumstances should arise.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/...

[daz3210]

pitmansboots said:

No. It did not. The doubt seemed to be described by the OP as one of identification after it was already acknowledged that the 2 motorcyclists were driving in excess of the speed limit. The Magistrates' opinion seemed to change after they couldn't attribute each man to each motorcycle.

I think if you read my earlier post, that is basically what I said.

Corroboration of the second riders speed may have been the big issue. But who was the second rider - ID was also the issue.

There is nothing bar-room about that opinion.

[agtlaw]

Breadvan72 said:

You might also be thinking of Derek Bentley, who was not the last person hanged in the UK.

Bentley , you may recall, was involved in a botched burglary. He was under arrest when he said to the other burglar, who had a gun. "let him have it".

the 2 bikers in my case were both wearing identical black hoodies; on the back of which was printed "AV IT" in large white capital letters. i never did explore with my clients what this meant.

[pitmansboots]

daz3210 said:

I think if you read my earlier post, that is basically what I said.

Corroboration of the second riders speed may have been the big issue. But who was the second rider - ID was also the issue.

There is nothing bar-room about that opinion.

Both were guilty so identification of one or the other is not relevant in deciding guilt, both were identified as being their. How then does identification of how the speed of either was measured or what it was play a part in a reasonably argued acquittal?

[daz3210]

pitmansboots said:

daz3210 said:

I think if you read my earlier post, that is basically what I said.

Corroboration of the second riders speed may have been the big issue. But who was the second rider - ID was also the issue.

There is nothing bar-room about that opinion.

Both were guilty so identification of one or the other is not relevant in deciding guilt, both were identified as being their. How then does identification of how the speed of either was measured or what it was play a part in a reasonably argued acquittal?

But it has been said that corroboration by way of a Speed Measuring Device is necessary for a conviction, together with an opinion of a PC that the vehicle was speeding, thus triggering his right to use the measure. (thereby giving two independent (and therefore corrorated) indications that speeding had occurred.

One driver was pinged by such a device. The only reference to the speed of the other driver was an opinion by one PC that the other driver was indeed speeding. So in essence the officer is saying he had reason to believe the second driver was speeding, and he corroborated that himself by comparing it with another driver who he had read the speed of. Basically it is all one persons opinion, which I as I understand it in law is not good enough for conviction.

Several years ago my mother was overtaken by a driver by the other driver passing the wrong side of a pedestrian refuge. She was so annoyed by this that she took the drivers registration and reported it to the local station. The desk officer asked if there was any other witness (even if it was in the same car), since if there was they could take things further since two statements corroborate the occurence. One persons word is not good enough.

[RizzoTheRat]

CBR JGWRR said:

In before IOM mentioned.

Not sure how good an argument that is, in the week I spent on the IoM (not during TT week) the mountain road was closed twice due to crashes

[vonhosen]

daz3210 said:

One persons word is not good enough.

Depends who the person is. There have been convictions on the evidence provided by one person.

[CBR JGWRR]

RizzoTheRat said:

CBR JGWRR said:

In before IOM mentioned.

Not sure how good an argument that is, in the week I spent on the IoM (not during TT week) the mountain road was closed twice due to crashes

That's because people come over and treat the place like a racetrack, which it isn't.

The locals are much better.

[RizzoTheRat]

Most of the locals we met also treated it like a race track, the difference being they know the track. I think most of the accidents are people trying to keep up with locals

[daz3210]

vonhosen said:

daz3210 said:

One persons word is not good enough.

Depends who the person is. There have been convictions on the evidence provided by one person.

Under what circumstances though?

Have there been convictions where identity has been in question?

If it was one bike passing a car, and the bike was pulled on the basis he was going faster than the car at a known speed, the identity would have been less in question.

[vonhosen]

daz3210 said:

vonhosen said:

daz3210 said:

One persons word is not good enough.

Depends who the person is. There have been convictions on the evidence provided by one person.

Under what circumstances though?

Lot's of different circumstances.

daz3210 said:

Have there been convictions where identity has been in question?

Not where there is sufficient doubt as to identity for the court, but of course that will vary on a case by case basis.

daz3210 said:

If it was one bike passing a car, and the bike was pulled on the basis he was going faster than the car at a known speed, the identity would have been less in question.

Two bikes passing a car travelling at a known speed shouldn't preclude a conviction where the court is happy that the two riders passing are the two accused of riding in excess of the limit.

[daz3210]

vonhosen said:

daz3210 said:

Have there been convictions where identity has been in question?

Not where there is sufficient doubt as to identity for the court, but of course that will vary on a case by case basis.

And that is my point.

In this particular case there must have been sufficient doubt raised as to who was who.

[agtlaw]

vonhosen said:

There have been convictions on the evidence provided by one person.

correct, but not for speeding on an A road where corroboration is required. n.b. corroboration can come from a machine.

"89(2)A person prosecuted for such an offence shall not be liable to be convicted solely on the evidence of one witness to the effect that, in the opinion of the witness, the person prosecuted was driving the vehicle at a speed exceeding a specified limit."

[daz3210]

agtlaw said:

vonhosen said:

There have been convictions on the evidence provided by one person.

correct, but not for speeding on an A road where corroboration is required. n.b. corroboration can come from a machine.

"89(2)A person prosecuted for such an offence shall not be liable to be convicted solely on the evidence of one witness to the effect that, in the opinion of the witness, the person prosecuted was driving the vehicle at a speed exceeding a specified limit."

And therefore if the first rider could have been identified, he would have been convicted of the speeding offence?

[pitmansboots]

agtlaw said:

correct, but not for speeding on an A road where corroboration is required. n.b. corroboration can come from a machine.

"89(2)A person prosecuted for such an offence shall not be liable to be convicted solely on the evidence of one witness to the effect that, in the opinion of the witness, the person prosecuted was driving the vehicle at a speed exceeding a specified limit."

I see 2 bikes speeding at Similar speeds, I measure one at 96, both are speeding and my opinion of the fact rellating to both are corroborated by the one measurement.