Police driver suspended for 140mph

[vonhosen]

mph1977 said:

RobMongoose said:

Idiot if it's true. Left himself wide open for that...

Does sound a bit like a guilty until proven innocent job though from that report.

I suspect if it was an RPU vehicle it'll be tracked ( like increasing numbers of plod vehicles now that MDTs have finally landed in plod land some 20 years behind the fire and ambulance services...)

the time between signing out of the WYP facility and the time of arrival in Durham will be noted by the relevant systems in custody suites ...

very much as a case of muppet plod makes stick to beat himself with

there appears to be no justification for the statutory exemption over speed limits to be claimed therefore there is a prima facie case of (criminal) speeding, careless if not dangerous driving , arguably there could be prosecutions under Health and safety legislation as well. not to mention a prima facie case of various disciplinary offences based on internal policy with regard to driving.

On the face of it (from the news report), but the DPS will have had more than 'the face of it' on which to base their decision.

[vonhosen]

10 Pence Short said:

vonhosen said:

Doesn't that then apply with how his CC will have to deal with him too?

See my edit above. If Milton broke regulations and invoked disciplinary procedures, why could the same sanctions apply to him as the (unconvicted) officer in the recent Durham case?

Milton didn't break regulations, he relied on the regs as part of his defence & the District Judge referred to (the lack of detail in) them when deciding that Milton was entitled to believe it was OK to 'hone his skills' on his own.

It was following his actions that the regs were changed so that couldn't happen again.

[10 Pence Short]

vonhosen said:

Milton didn't break regulations, he relied on the regs as part of his defence & the District Judge referred to (the lack of detail in) them when deciding that Milton was entitled to believe it was OK to 'hone his skills' on his own.

It was following his actions that the regs were changed so that couldn't happen again.

Indeed, so when discussing the future, we can expect Police drivers to be removed from duties for behaviour such as Milton's. Which is a good thing.

[vonhosen]

10 Pence Short said:

vonhosen said:

Milton didn't break regulations, he relied on the regs as part of his defence & the District Judge referred to (the lack of detail in) them when deciding that Milton was entitled to believe it was OK to 'hone his skills' on his own.

It was following his actions that the regs were changed so that couldn't happen again.

Indeed, so when discussing the future, we can expect Police drivers to be removed from duties for behaviour such as Milton's. Which is a good thing.

Where they were to claim they were honing their skills whilst on their own as reason for exceeding the limit, yes.

[gruffalo]

vonhosen said:

gruffalo said:

What does not sit well with me is that this PC has demonstrated a few times now that his opinion of what is dangerous and not is a little flakey.

Yet he is still in a position where if in his opinion someone else is being dangerous he can report them, they get prosecuted, fined, points on their licence possible ban, loss of job if banned and so on and on, all from his opinion.

Not right in my opinion.

No not all from his opinion. He reports the fact of what he saw, the CPS decide whether that amounts to dangerous driving & where they decide so a court is asked to consider whether the facts (not the officer's opinion) amount to dangerous driving.

And how many times has a court taken th ereporting officers word as more trustworthy than that of the reported person.

Technically you are correct Von but the reality is questionable.

[vonhosen]

gruffalo said:

vonhosen said:

gruffalo said:

What does not sit well with me is that this PC has demonstrated a few times now that his opinion of what is dangerous and not is a little flakey.

Yet he is still in a position where if in his opinion someone else is being dangerous he can report them, they get prosecuted, fined, points on their licence possible ban, loss of job if banned and so on and on, all from his opinion.

Not right in my opinion.

No not all from his opinion. He reports the fact of what he saw, the CPS decide whether that amounts to dangerous driving & where they decide so a court is asked to consider whether the facts (not the officer's opinion) amount to dangerous driving.

And how many times has a court taken th ereporting officers word as more trustworthy than that of the reported person.

Technically you are correct Von but the reality is questionable.

His word & his opinion are different things.

[Zeeky]

vonhosen said:

10 Pence Short said:

vonhosen said:

Can you provide the link to the particular hearing (& para number) you are referring to?

I referenced it on the previous page, the judgment's on BAILII.

It's OK I found it, not long after

LADY JUSTICE HALLETT said:

In the circumstances, the district judge's interpretation of the expression "police purposes" in section 87 does not fall for consideration and anything I say on the subject may be obiter dicta.

Obiter comments can be persuasive authority notwithstanding that they are not binding. That is why judges make them, to assist future argument. Can you reference any authority, binding or not for the view put by Cat?

Cat said:

In law he doesn't need to justify the speed he was driving at to make use of the exemption he only needs to show that sticking to the limit would hinder the Policing purpose he was engaged in at the time.

Cat

That appears to be the Police view but it doesn't appear to be consistent with any authority.

[Cat]

Zeeky said:

That appears to be the Police view but it doesn't appear to be consistent with any authority.

Is there any authority to the contrary? The legislation makes no mention that the exemption only applies if the speed in question can be justified - so why apply that interpretation?

Cat

[vonhosen]

Zeeky said:

vonhosen said:

10 Pence Short said:

vonhosen said:

Can you provide the link to the particular hearing (& para number) you are referring to?

I referenced it on the previous page, the judgment's on BAILII.

It's OK I found it, not long after

LADY JUSTICE HALLETT said:

In the circumstances, the district judge's interpretation of the expression "police purposes" in section 87 does not fall for consideration and anything I say on the subject may be obiter dicta.

Obiter comments can be persuasive authority notwithstanding that they are not binding. That is why judges make them, to assist future argument.

Looked at in the context of where it is placed it is almost a throw away comment of personal opinion. It is not dealt with in any detail & is a snippet within a judgement with regard to dangerous driving.

Of course not all judges may agree in the interpretation. Courts after all overrule courts.

Zeeky said:

Can you reference any authority, binding or not for the view put by Cat?

Cat said:

In law he doesn't need to justify the speed he was driving at to make use of the exemption he only needs to show that sticking to the limit would hinder the Policing purpose he was engaged in at the time.

No.

But equally as I said earlier I've never seen any case where somebody claiming the exemption has had it ruled an unlawful use of the speed exemption by virtue of the margin over the limit. Nobody has been able to cite a case where that has been the ruling.

If it were to be the case that the margin over the limit allowed is dictated by the reason the limit is being exceeded that would be even more difficult to commonly establish than when a speed becomes dangerous for the circumstances.

[mph1977]

Cat said:

Zeeky said:

That appears to be the Police view but it doesn't appear to be consistent with any authority.

Is there any authority to the contrary? The legislation makes no mention that the exemption only applies if the speed in question can be justified - so why apply that interpretation?

Cat

because the view is taken by by the emergency services covered by the exemption that there needs to be a reason for the service to support the proposition that the purpose of use would be hindered if the exemption was not claimed ...

This is fairly easily justified if responding to call categorised into a higer response category i.e. 'immediates' and perhpas the second tier of call for Plod and red / amber or cat A cat B calls for ambulance and life threat calls for trumpton )...

[vonhosen]

mph1977 said:

Cat said:

Zeeky said:

That appears to be the Police view but it doesn't appear to be consistent with any authority.

Is there any authority to the contrary? The legislation makes no mention that the exemption only applies if the speed in question can be justified - so why apply that interpretation?

Cat

because the view is taken by by the emergency services covered by the exemption that there needs to be a reason for the service to support the proposition that the purpose of use would be hindered if the exemption was not claimed ...

This is fairly easily justified if responding to call categorised into a higer response category i.e. 'immediates' and perhpas the second tier of call for Plod and red / amber or cat A cat B calls for ambulance and life threat calls for trumpton )...

They aren't binding though, certainly in the Police, because the person responding may have information that the call receiver/despatcher does not. Also, certainly in the case of the Police, their role is less restricted to response to calls from the public. You then have officially sanctioned training, where there is no actual emergency at all.

[mph1977]

vonhosen said:

mph1977 said:

Cat said:

Zeeky said:

That appears to be the Police view but it doesn't appear to be consistent with any authority.

Is there any authority to the contrary? The legislation makes no mention that the exemption only applies if the speed in question can be justified - so why apply that interpretation?

Cat

because the view is taken by by the emergency services covered by the exemption that there needs to be a reason for the service to support the proposition that the purpose of use would be hindered if the exemption was not claimed ...

This is fairly easily justified if responding to call categorised into a higer response category i.e. 'immediates' and perhpas the second tier of call for Plod and red / amber or cat A cat B calls for ambulance and life threat calls for trumpton )...

They aren't binding though, certainly in the Police, because the person responding may have information that the call receiver/despatcher does not. Also, certainly in the case of the Police, their role is less restricted to response to calls from the public. You then have officially sanctioned training, where there is no actual emergency at all.

did i claim by statement was exhaustive ...

Officially sanctioned training is obviously a legitimate reason, it does not change the point that services require justification to theiur own satisfaction before supporting the claim for exemption - also the way in which SCPs have asked for justification in speed camera activitations by EVs - although compromise agreements and 'Roger lights' have reduced the volume of requests in some places

[Zeeky]

Cat said:

...Is there any authority to the contrary? The legislation makes no mention that the exemption only applies if the speed in question can be justified - so why apply that interpretation?

Cat

The law is unclear. I agree with your interpretation but the High Court, in the Milton case, appears to disagree with us and its opinion has more authority than ours.

vonhosen said:

...Looked at in the context of where it is placed it is almost a throw away comment of personal opinion. It is not dealt with in any detail & is a snippet within a judgement with regard to dangerous driving.

This is Singlecoilesque. The comment was made with the intention of assisting those reading the judgment. It is personal opinion, but personal opinion that can have value in persuading a court. Unlike our opinions.

vonhosen said:

...But equally as I said earlier I've never seen any case where somebody claiming the exemption has had it ruled an unlawful use of the speed exemption by virtue of the margin over the limit. Nobody has been able to cite a case where that has been the ruling.

If the Police in general are of the same opinion we are, then POs will not be reported and there will be no case law to confirm one way or the other. If that is the case the absence of binding case law is a red herring.


This case may have been a good opportunity to answer the question.

[vonhosen]

Zeeky said:

Cat said:

...Is there any authority to the contrary? The legislation makes no mention that the exemption only applies if the speed in question can be justified - so why apply that interpretation?

Cat

The law is unclear. I agree with your interpretation but the High Court, in the Milton case, appears to disagree with us and its opinion has more authority than ours.

vonhosen said:

...Looked at in the context of where it is placed it is almost a throw away comment of personal opinion. It is not dealt with in any detail & is a snippet within a judgement with regard to dangerous driving.

This is Singlecoilesque. The comment was made with the intention of assisting those reading the judgment. It is personal opinion, but personal opinion that can have value in persuading a court. Unlike our opinions.

vonhosen said:

...But equally as I said earlier I've never seen any case where somebody claiming the exemption has had it ruled an unlawful use of the speed exemption by virtue of the margin over the limit. Nobody has been able to cite a case where that has been the ruling.

If the Police in general are of the same opinion we are, then POs will not be reported and there will be no case law to confirm one way or the other. If that is the case the absence of binding case law is a red herring.


This case may have been a good opportunity to answer the question.

Quite, but I'll start from the position that things are legal until there is sufficient to convince it isn't legal.

[jbsportstech]

ok von would you like to be crewed with pc milton driving a high powered rpu vehicle?

[vonhosen]

jbsportstech said:

ok von would you like to be crewed with himmed driving a high powered rpu vehicle?

It's not going to happen.

[jbsportstech]

vonhosen said:

It's not going to happen.

no but he gets a transfer to your unit and your are crewed with him would you not be concerned?

[vonhosen]

jbsportstech said:

vonhosen said:

It's not going to happen.

no but he gets a transfer to your unit and your are crewed with him would you not be concerned?

Like I said it's not going to happen.

[Cat]

Zeeky said:

Cat said:

...Is there any authority to the contrary? The legislation makes no mention that the exemption only applies if the speed in question can be justified - so why apply that interpretation?

Cat

The law is unclear. I agree with your interpretation but the High Court, in the Milton case, appears to disagree with us and its opinion has more authority than ours.

I'm not sure that the law is unclear. The comment in the Milton judgement stated that it was a matter of "fact and degree" as to whether the exemption applies but makes no specific mention that those matters relate to the speed involved nor its justification. It would seem just just as likely to a be reference to the "fact" as to whether it was a Police purpose or not and the "degree" to which obeying the limit would hinder that purpose?

In the absence of an authority stating the speed travelled at must be justified for the exemption to apply I can see no reason to interpret the legislation that way.

Cat

[Zeeky]

vonhosen said:

[Quite, but I'll start from the position that things are legal until there is sufficient to convince it isn't legal.

To convince whom? Convincing you or I is not relevant to the question.