Police driver suspended for 140mph
Discussion
ging84 said:
CPS want to have their cake and eat it.
speeding is a specific offence, with very clear sentencing guidelines, which makes it nice and easy to prosecute speeding on contexts where is clearly posed no danger, yet when they feel that the penalties for speeding laid out by parliament are not enough at the top end of the scale, they make up there own laws saying doing over x mph is automatically dangerous driving.
This isn't true. They have to prove each aspect of the offence if challenged. speeding is a specific offence, with very clear sentencing guidelines, which makes it nice and easy to prosecute speeding on contexts where is clearly posed no danger, yet when they feel that the penalties for speeding laid out by parliament are not enough at the top end of the scale, they make up there own laws saying doing over x mph is automatically dangerous driving.
That's why you'll see X speed treated as excess speed, and the same speed forming part of a dangerous driving charge. It depends on the wider circumstances and evidence available.
As someone who is going through the dangerous driving saga at the moment, I can confirm it's the most biased, lottery ridden, pathetic excuse of legislation and law we have in the whole country.
The guidelines, wording and caselaw are all very vague. I've read stories of people going to prison for similar/lesser circumstances to mine, and similarly read stories of people being acquitted for much worse.
The guidelines, wording and caselaw are all very vague. I've read stories of people going to prison for similar/lesser circumstances to mine, and similarly read stories of people being acquitted for much worse.
un1corn said:
As someone who is going through the dangerous driving saga at the moment, I can confirm it's the most biased, lottery ridden, pathetic excuse of legislation and law we have in the whole country.
The guidelines, wording and caselaw are all very vague. I've read stories of people going to prison for similar/lesser circumstances to mine, and similarly read stories of people being acquitted for much worse.
If it's going to trial, have you elected (assuming you had the choice) for magistrates or crown court and jury?The guidelines, wording and caselaw are all very vague. I've read stories of people going to prison for similar/lesser circumstances to mine, and similarly read stories of people being acquitted for much worse.
The law itself isn't really very vague; rather the circumstances of each and every case are very specific and this influences the outcome. A small change in the circumstances can have a big impact in the result. Additionally, in dangerous driving cases the court always has the fall-back of Careless if they believe the driving either didn't fall far short of the what's required or there was no danger present. That's assuming they don't acquit altogether.
Searching for precedents where the facts match your own sufficiently closely to compare might be fruitless, particularly in you're relying on press reports (which are often unreliable and miss out key deciding facts).
allergictocheese said:
If it's going to trial, have you elected (assuming you had the choice) for magistrates or crown court and jury?
The law itself isn't really very vague; rather the circumstances of each and every case are very specific and this influences the outcome. A small change in the circumstances can have a big impact in the result. Additionally, in dangerous driving cases the court always has the fall-back of Careless if they believe the driving either didn't fall far short of the what's required or there was no danger present. That's assuming they don't acquit altogether.
Searching for precedents where the facts match your own sufficiently closely to compare might be fruitless, particularly in you're relying on press reports (which are often unreliable and miss out key deciding facts).
I have elected for crown yes.The law itself isn't really very vague; rather the circumstances of each and every case are very specific and this influences the outcome. A small change in the circumstances can have a big impact in the result. Additionally, in dangerous driving cases the court always has the fall-back of Careless if they believe the driving either didn't fall far short of the what's required or there was no danger present. That's assuming they don't acquit altogether.
Searching for precedents where the facts match your own sufficiently closely to compare might be fruitless, particularly in you're relying on press reports (which are often unreliable and miss out key deciding facts).
I appreciate that press reports can vary, but I recall stories similar to the OP, where an MoP has had suspended prison sentences handed down. The OP was done with no legal justification?
Breadvan72 said:
"Here's the story" ha ha ha ha, a factually incorrect, sensationalist piece of s
te that a media studies met collage student would be ashamed of. I have received an apology from the journalist since printing. Glad to see you saw the point I was trying to make. As a barrister (wow) you have truly shown how it is with your concise and enlightening contribution to this discussion. I love insulting people to. I usually would do it if offended personally, and would have the stones to do it to their face
rossmcdee said:
Breadvan72 said:
"Here's the story" ha ha ha ha, a factually incorrect, sensationalist piece of ste that a media studies met collage student would be ashamed of. I have received an apology from the journalist since printing. Glad to see you saw the point I was trying to make. As a barrister (wow) you have truly shown how it is with your concise and enlightening contribution to this discussion. I love insulting people to. I usually would do it if offended personally, and would have the stones to do it to their faceIt's a sad state of affairs, but PH has deteriorated into a cross between BRAKE and mumsnet.
mybrainhurts said:
You've come to the wrong forum here, old boy. It's de rigueur to slate anybody who breaks the law and is even slightly suspected of thinking something's not fair along the way.
It's a sad state of affairs, but PH has deteriorated into a cross between BRAKE and mumsnet.
There is an insurgence of people who also can't take responsibility for their actions. Not to mention the "entitled" generation who seem hell bent on seeing everyone for everything.It's a sad state of affairs, but PH has deteriorated into a cross between BRAKE and mumsnet.
(Neither of the above are directed at the OP, who is entitled to his day in court)
mybrainhurts said:
Greendubber said:
Ah but he's owned RWD cars and had a bit of track time so he's clearly a tasty driver....
Give it a rest, he might just be better than you. Why does relevant background information always prompt raw sarcasm in these pages?mybrainhurts said:
Give it a rest, he might just be better than you. Why does relevant background information always prompt raw sarcasm in these pages?
NoI'd rather people stop coming up with stupid reasons for what they have done. Its the 'well I think Im an awesome driver so it's ok' line which is ridiculous.
mybrainhurts said:
You've come to the wrong forum here, old boy. It's de rigueur to slate anybody who breaks the law and is even slightly suspected of thinking something's not fair along the way.
It's a sad state of affairs, but PH has deteriorated into a cross between BRAKE and mumsnet.
I often think back to the good old days of PH when people with dangerous driving convictions were celebrated as heroes It's a sad state of affairs, but PH has deteriorated into a cross between BRAKE and mumsnet.
Countdown said:
mybrainhurts said:
Greendubber said:
Ah but he's owned RWD cars and had a bit of track time so he's clearly a tasty driver....
Give it a rest, he might just be better than you. Why does relevant background information always prompt raw sarcasm in these pages?Vaud said:
mybrainhurts said:
You've come to the wrong forum here, old boy. It's de rigueur to slate anybody who breaks the law and is even slightly suspected of thinking something's not fair along the way.
It's a sad state of affairs, but PH has deteriorated into a cross between BRAKE and mumsnet.
There is an insurgence of people who also can't take responsibility for their actions. Not to mention the "entitled" generation who seem hell bent on seeing everyone for everything.It's a sad state of affairs, but PH has deteriorated into a cross between BRAKE and mumsnet.
(Neither of the above are directed at the OP, who is entitled to his day in court)
It's irrelevant to the offence of dangerous driving, though. A court isn't allowed to take any additional experience or skills into account.
Whether that's right or not is open to debate, though you might bear in mind that prior to 1991 the offence was reckless driving, judged subjectively, where the driver's state of mind was taken into consideration. That was deemed wrong and the test changed to an objective one measured against the careful and competent driver when dangerous driving replaced reckless.
Whether that's right or not is open to debate, though you might bear in mind that prior to 1991 the offence was reckless driving, judged subjectively, where the driver's state of mind was taken into consideration. That was deemed wrong and the test changed to an objective one measured against the careful and competent driver when dangerous driving replaced reckless.
Greendubber said:
mybrainhurts said:
Give it a rest, he might just be better than you. Why does relevant background information always prompt raw sarcasm in these pages?
NoI'd rather people stop coming up with stupid reasons for what they have done. Its the 'well I think Im an awesome driver so it's ok' line which is ridiculous.
Call me confused, but I thought making assumptions was deemed to be bad policing.
Edited by mybrainhurts on Saturday 13th December 14:43
mybrainhurts said:
Suggest you think about the tripe you just wrote by reading my post above. You might be right, you might be wrong. In such circumstances of doubt, better to shut up. You know about defensive driving, think of this as defensive talking.
Call me confused, but I thought making assumptions was deemed to be bad policing.
For someone who's got a bit of a hardon for making assumptions...you appear to making a few of your own.Call me confused, but I thought making assumptions was deemed to be bad policing.
Edited by mybrainhurts on Saturday 13th December 14:43
mybrainhurts said:
Suggest you think about the tripe you just wrote by reading my post above. You might be right, you might be wrong. In such circumstances of doubt, better to shut up. You know about defensive driving, think of this as defensive talking.
Call me confused, but I thought making assumptions was deemed to be bad policing.
I suggest you get your knickers into a twist about something that matters or in your words 'shut up'Call me confused, but I thought making assumptions was deemed to be bad policing.
Edited by mybrainhurts on Saturday 13th December 14:43
Greendubber said:
mybrainhurts said:
Suggest you think about the tripe you just wrote by reading my post above. You might be right, you might be wrong. In such circumstances of doubt, better to shut up. You know about defensive driving, think of this as defensive talking.
Call me confused, but I thought making assumptions was deemed to be bad policing.
I suggest you get your knickers into a twist about something that matters or in your words 'shut up'Call me confused, but I thought making assumptions was deemed to be bad policing.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff