Driver Jailed for using Jammer

[tapereel]

EU_Foreigner said:

He was unlucky that an officer operated the camera in the van. I thought the majority was civilians from the partnership and you can not PCOJ them?

If the prize for the fu"k-wit comment of the year is 100% of the facts to be wrong your comment can't be beaten.
The officer in the van was a civilian and you don't PCOJ the officer. You are perhaps confusing it with obstructing a constable.
The chap was driving in excess of the speed limit and prevented the officer acting for the police from lawfully measuring the speed of his car. Having found that the speed was excessive the course of justice was perverted by the action of the driver fittng and using a jamming device. Now the police can detect these devices perhaps more prosecutions for their use will follow this one.

Edited by tapereel on Thursday 26th February 14:22

[Psycho Warren]

Puddenchucker said:

Magistrates Guidelines said:

The court may disqualify any person convicted of an offence from driving for such period as it thinks fit.
This may be instead of or in addition to dealing with the offender in any other way.

The section does not require the offence to be connected to the use of a vehicle.
However, the Court of Appeal has held that the power cannot be exercised arbitrarily and there must be sufficient reason for the disqualification.

Interesting!

I can imagine loads of ways that law could be easily misused. eg on the knob end of the scale: a wealthy car nut commits x non-motoring crime. Clearly the maximum tariff fine is a joke, and he cant be locked up, so ban him from the roads as an alternative to make the punishment one that hurts??

Or on the decent guy end of the scale, a guy works on his car which upsets his neighbours, despite in reality there being little excessive noise. The beligerent neighbour could these days quite easily get some injunction thingy against said petrolhead who ignores it out of principal and ends up before a judge for said breach, banned from driving instead of a suspended sentance as the judge thinks the ban will be more effective than the sentance.

Also i guess if you have a hard nut judge, pretty much any minor motoring offence (including non-endorsables) could end up with a ban if the judge feels like it.

[jith]

tapereel said:

EU_Foreigner said:

He was unlucky that an officer operated the camera in the van. I thought the majority was civilians from the partnership and you can not PCOJ them?

If the prize for the fu"k-wit comment of the year is 100% of the facts to be wrong your comment can't be beaten.
The officer in the van was a civilian and you don't PCOJ the officer. You are perhaps confusing it with obstructing a constable.
The chap was driving in excess of the speed limit and prevented the officer acting for the police from lawfully measuring the speed of his car. Having found that the speed was excessive the course of justice was perverted by the action of the driver fittng and using a jamming device. Now the police can detect these devices perhaps more prosecutions for their use will follow this one.

Edited by tapereel on Thursday 26th February 14:22

I tell you the problem I have with this and many similar cases like it; apart of course with the outrageously harsh sentence. There is nothing in the article that says he was speeding, nor does it say he was even charged with that.

In order to prove he was perverting the course of justice you would have to prove that his actions prevented the offence of speeding from being detected. If you then go on to discover that the laser jammer actually worked and no speed was detected, you therefore cannot prove he was speeding.

If he was not speeding and no offence was committed, how the hell was he perverting the course of justice? He did not prevent the detection of an offence unless the offence actually occurred, and, most importantly, can be proven to have occurred.

You also have to consider why this is being pursued so aggressively when we have drug dealers and those committing horrendous assaults walking out of the court with a community sentence.

J

[EU_Foreigner]

tapereel said:

If the prize for the fu"k-wit comment of the year is 100% of the facts to be wrong your comment can't be beaten.
The officer in the van was a civilian and you don't PCOJ the officer. You are perhaps confusing it with obstructing a constable.
The chap was driving in excess of the speed limit and prevented the officer acting for the police from lawfully measuring the speed of his car. Having found that the speed was excessive the course of justice was perverted by the action of the driver fittng and using a jamming device. Now the police can detect these devices perhaps more prosecutions for their use will follow this one.

Edited by tapereel on Thursday 26th February 14:22

Bit harsh there fellow ...

My comment was based on that as there is no officer involved if it is a civilian, that the rest falls apart as you have not obstructed an officer in his duty. Therefore the course of justice has not been affected as no lawful person has started this course yet?

Perhaps I need to read the exact definition of PCOJ then as I thought it started when a police officer or any other law officer got involved.

[Cat]

There is no requirement to prove the person was speeding:-

CPS guidance said:

The offence of perverting the course of justice is sometimes referred to as "attempting to pervert the course of justice". It does not matter whether or not the acts result in a perversion of the course of justice: the offence is committed when acts tending and intended to pervert a course of justice are done.

Cat

[mph1977]

EU_Foreigner said:

tapereel said:

If the prize for the fu"k-wit comment of the year is 100% of the facts to be wrong your comment can't be beaten.
The officer in the van was a civilian and you don't PCOJ the officer. You are perhaps confusing it with obstructing a constable.
The chap was driving in excess of the speed limit and prevented the officer acting for the police from lawfully measuring the speed of his car. Having found that the speed was excessive the course of justice was perverted by the action of the driver fittng and using a jamming device. Now the police can detect these devices perhaps more prosecutions for their use will follow this one.

Edited by tapereel on Thursday 26th February 14:22

Bit harsh there fellow ...

My comment was based on that as there is no officer involved if it is a civilian, that the rest falls apart as you have not obstructed an officer in his duty. Therefore the course of justice has not been affected as no lawful person has started this course yet?

Perhaps I need to read the exact definition of PCOJ then as I thought it started when a police officer or any other law officer got involved.

does it matter if this is under Common Law or Statute Law ?

does there need to be a Wet Ink Signature as well ?

does the constable need to be acting on his oath ?

arte there other things you need to Stand Under and Understand before replying further ?

[johnao]

mph1977 said:

does it matter if this is under Common Law or Statute Law ?

does there need to be a Wet Ink Signature as well ?

does the constable need to be acting on his oath ?

arte there other things you need to Stand Under and Understand before replying further ?

Now, where's that answer to my question?

[otolith]

jith said:

You also have to consider why this is being pursued so aggressively when we have drug dealers and those committing horrendous assaults walking out of the court with a community sentence.

Because unlike beating the crap out a defenceless man, speeding is something that an awful lot of moral and decent citizens would do if they thought they could get away with it. The intent of the sentence is to scare the crap out of anybody else thinking of buying a jammer.

[tapereel]

otolith said:

jith said:

You also have to consider why this is being pursued so aggressively when we have drug dealers and those committing horrendous assaults walking out of the court with a community sentence.

Because unlike beating the crap out a defenceless man, speeding is something that an awful lot of moral and decent citizens would do if they thought they could get away with it. The intent of the sentence is to scare the crap out of anybody else thinking of buying a jammer.

That would just about summarise the intent to make the sentence deter others theory.

[mph1977]

tapereel said:

otolith said:

jith said:

You also have to consider why this is being pursued so aggressively when we have drug dealers and those committing horrendous assaults walking out of the court with a community sentence.

Because unlike beating the crap out a defenceless man, speeding is something that an awful lot of moral and decent citizens would do if they thought they could get away with it. The intent of the sentence is to scare the crap out of anybody else thinking of buying a jammer.

That would just about summarise the intent to make the sentence deter others theory.

itls what PCOJ exists for ...

[jm doc]

Cat said:

There is no requirement to prove the person was speeding:-

CPS guidance said:

The offence of perverting the course of justice is sometimes referred to as "attempting to pervert the course of justice". It does not matter whether or not the acts result in a perversion of the course of justice: the offence is committed when acts tending and intended to pervert a course of justice are done.

Cat

By this definition then just buying one is illegal and also possibly selling them. Further it could be argued that the "act" of slowing down when you see a camera van is illegal on this basis. CPS wishful think blindly followed by the ignorant

[tapereel]

jith said:

tapereel said:

EU_Foreigner said:

He was unlucky that an officer operated the camera in the van. I thought the majority was civilians from the partnership and you can not PCOJ them?

If the prize for the fu"k-wit comment of the year is 100% of the facts to be wrong your comment can't be beaten.
The officer in the van was a civilian and you don't PCOJ the officer. You are perhaps confusing it with obstructing a constable.
The chap was driving in excess of the speed limit and prevented the officer acting for the police from lawfully measuring the speed of his car. Having found that the speed was excessive the course of justice was perverted by the action of the driver fittng and using a jamming device. Now the police can detect these devices perhaps more prosecutions for their use will follow this one.

Edited by tapereel on Thursday 26th February 14:22

I tell you the problem I have with this and many similar cases like it; apart of course with the outrageously harsh sentence. There is nothing in the article that says he was speeding, nor does it say he was even charged with that.

In order to prove he was perverting the course of justice you would have to prove that his actions prevented the offence of speeding from being detected. If you then go on to discover that the laser jammer actually worked and no speed was detected, you therefore cannot prove he was speeding.

If he was not speeding and no offence was committed, how the hell was he perverting the course of justice? He did not prevent the detection of an offence unless the offence actually occurred, and, most importantly, can be proven to have occurred.

You also have to consider why this is being pursued so aggressively when we have drug dealers and those committing horrendous assaults walking out of the court with a community sentence.

J

when you know how then the speed can be proven. The reason why this is a PCOJ case is that in the normal course of operations the laser operator would have measured the speed. The problem here is that this and possibly other officers were prevented from measuring the speed of Stephenson's car and that is a perversion of the course of justice because the police's ability to measure speed was deliberately denied to them

[Cat]

jm doc said:

By this definition then just buying one is illegal and also possibly selling them. Further it could be argued that the "act" of slowing down when you see a camera van is illegal on this basis. CPS wishful think blindly followed by the ignorant

If you were less ignorant about PCOJ you would know that the course of justice must already be underway at the time of the act for the offence to be committed, so buying/selling a jammer would not be an offence.

The Crown Court judge was happy enough for the conviction to stand without any evidence of speeding but I guess you know better.

Cat

[tapereel]

J

Cat said:

jm doc said:

By this definition then just buying one is illegal and also possibly selling them. Further it could be argued that the "act" of slowing down when you see a camera van is illegal on this basis. CPS wishful think blindly followed by the ignorant

If you were less ignorant about PCOJ you would know that the course of justice must already be underway at the time of the act for the offence to be committed, so buying/selling a jammer would not be an offence.

The Crown Court judge was happy enough for the conviction to stand without any evidence of speeding but I guess you know better.

Cat

well he may well have been but in this case the speeds were proven as well.

[Cat]

tapereel said:

well he may well have been but in this case the speeds were proven as well.

Fair enough. I've not seen it mentioned in any of the reports I've read.

Cat

[jm doc]

Cat said:

jm doc said:

By this definition then just buying one is illegal and also possibly selling them. Further it could be argued that the "act" of slowing down when you see a camera van is illegal on this basis. CPS wishful think blindly followed by the ignorant

If you were less ignorant about PCOJ you would know that the course of justice must already be underway at the time of the act for the offence to be committed, so buying/selling a jammer would not be an offence.

The Crown Court judge was happy enough for the conviction to stand without any evidence of speeding but I guess you know better.

Cat

I think the ignorant here are the CPS and the judiciary who happily pursue cases like this and then pass judgements like this. As others have pointed out, the grossness of the disproportionality involved brings the law and all those involved into disrepute.

[johnao]

mph1977 said:

itls what PCOJ exists for ...

Why are you still avoiding answering my question?
Ok, I'll give you a clue. The answer is either yes, or no. Come on don't be shy.

[mph1977]

johnao said:

mph1977 said:

itls what PCOJ exists for ...

Why are you still avoiding answering my question?
Ok, I'll give you a clue. The answer is either yes, or no. Come on don't be shy.

to prove the point that attempting to divert the course of justice will be rewarded with punishment at least as severe if not more so than manning the flip up and taking it like a man .

[Cat]

jm doc said:

I think the ignorant here are the CPS and the judiciary who happily pursue cases like this and then pass judgements like this. As others have pointed out, the grossness of the disproportionality involved brings the law and all those involved into disrepute.

That is your view but I would have to disagree. It is often the case that offences involving interference with the administration of justice (e.g. perjury, contempt, PCOJ etc.) are severely dealt with by the courts. The reason being that if they were allowed to continue unchecked the justice system would become unworkable. It can result in sentences which appear disproportionate but which are simply a reflection of the seriousness with which the court views the offence.

Cat

[jm doc]

Cat said:

jm doc said:

I think the ignorant here are the CPS and the judiciary who happily pursue cases like this and then pass judgements like this. As others have pointed out, the grossness of the disproportionality involved brings the law and all those involved into disrepute.

That is your view but I would have to disagree. It is often the case that offences involving interference with the administration of justice (e.g. perjury, contempt, PCOJ etc.) are severely dealt with by the courts. The reason being that if they were allowed to continue unchecked the justice system would become unworkable. It can result in sentences which appear disproportionate but which are simply a reflection of the seriousness with which the court views the offence.

Cat

The foundations of the justice system are not being rocked by this offence, but by the response. Failing to learn from mistakes is a central feature of failing systems. Is your eager support representative of the views of the legal profession?