Stiffer speeding penalties for leading rideout. or not.
Discussion
Breadvan72 said:
Some of the groovier High Court Judges have been known to say "yeah, right" and similar when confronted with ye olde stinky Stilton from the Bar. I have never quite heard one say "yes, and monkeys might fly out of my butt" in response to an advocate's submission , but a few have come close.
In High Court in Manchester last week, during a questionable submission by a Barrister on his back foot, the judge managed a full-on, 10 second mexican wave of his eyebrows. It had to be seen to be believed and got more than a chuckle.pitmansboots said:
shouldbworking said:
Surely regardless of exactly who was who in the situation they still have enough evidence to secure a conviction? 2 bikes, one of which was verified @ 96mph, and two officers view that the other rider travelling at a similar pace?
Or does the offence require a specific speed linked to a specific driver?
Regardless, it hardly seems fair to link the case of blaming the speed of subsequent riders on the lead rider with a case of two riders on a hoon who got off because the officers failed to get all the information.
They can't use the evidence of the 2 officers because they saw the vehicles on different parts of the road. Brightly v Pearson [1938] 4 All E.R. 127. The officers must speak as seeing the speeding on the same part of the road.Or does the offence require a specific speed linked to a specific driver?
Regardless, it hardly seems fair to link the case of blaming the speed of subsequent riders on the lead rider with a case of two riders on a hoon who got off because the officers failed to get all the information.
A specific speed is not required although here we have one. 96mph from a laser. The other biker was seen by the officer making the measurement to be travelling faster to catch up. Both are therefore proven to be speeding. The specifics of the speed are used for sentencing and perhaps consideration of other charges such as dangerous driving.
I don't think anyone is blaming the subsequent rider for being 'forced' to keep up. The Magistrates were convinced both were speeding so both were guilty of that offence; they have then decided to acquit because they don't agree which one should be given a higher penalty that the other; that is a perverse and absurd decision that should be appealed IMHO.
The court knew by corroboration of the speed measuring device that one of the riders was speeding.
The court knew that the other rider was also speeding by the evidence of ONE Police officer.
The identity of the two people was identified by another Police officer who by the sound of it was out of sight of the first.
The individuals did not admit who was first in line when pinged by the speed measuring device.
My understanding is that the test for reliable evidence is that TWO forms of evidence are required for a 'safe' conviction.
Of the two riders, there is:-
1. Evidence from Officer One that he belived Biker One to be speeding, and he corroborated this with his speed measuring device.
2. Evidence from Officer One that Biker Two was speeding, based on comparison with Biker One, but no corroboration.
3. Evidence from Officer Two that she stopped a 'Mr Smith' and a 'Mr Jones'
I would suspect therefore that only Biker One would be capable of being convicted, since he is the only one for which there is corroboration of the offence.
There is no evidence that proves which Biker was 'Mr Smith' at the time of the ping with the speed measuring device (and similar with 'Mr Jones').
Hence my belief is that the court simply felt that while there was proof that ONE of the individuals could be found guilty of the allegation, there was no way to prove which one, and simply on that basis both had to aquit both.
I remember some years ago I applied to be a magistrate (they didn't want me
). Part of the application involved considering a (theoretical) case. The case involved a black youth, arrested on the allegation of damage during a riot. The youth admitted being there, but there were also many other 'similar' individuals. Consequently I was told the correct decision was to aquit, on the basis that he was not identified positively as the offender.But then again, wasn't the last person hanged in Britain simply convicted (of murder) on the basis of he was present at the time, although he did not carry out the act?
The last two men hanged were hanged in 1964, and it was indeed a case in which both were present at the scene of and involved in a felony, and it was not clear which of the two had beaten the victim to death, but the jury appeared to think that both had been directly guilty, as otherwise one of them would have been convicted of murder but spared hanging.
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". This might have meant "let the police officer have the gun", or "shoot the police officer". No one knows. Anyway, the other perp shot the police officer. He was too young to hang, and he is still alive today. Bentley's trial was widely regarded, then and now, as unfair.
Bentley was educationally sub normal, with the mental age of a child. He was hanged nonetheless.
Some States of the US still execute brain damaged and mentally disabled teenagers.
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". This might have meant "let the police officer have the gun", or "shoot the police officer". No one knows. Anyway, the other perp shot the police officer. He was too young to hang, and he is still alive today. Bentley's trial was widely regarded, then and now, as unfair.
Bentley was educationally sub normal, with the mental age of a child. He was hanged nonetheless.
Some States of the US still execute brain damaged and mentally disabled teenagers.
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 26th April 10:30
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.
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.
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.
Knowing very little about law, Peter has full liability for the shooting, and they all have equal liability for the bank robbery?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.
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.
My wild stab in the dark...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.
All guilty of robbery. All guilty of murder, unless they individually do something to actively rescind their own involvement or at least discourage Peter from letting Bland 'have it' (maybe introducing manslaughter for whoever did?). I somehow feel the question's wording will have some nice traps in it.
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". This might have meant "let the police officer have the gun", or "shoot the police officer". No one knows. Anyway, the other perp shot the police officer. He was too young to hang, and he is still alive today. Bentley's trial was widely regarded, then and now, as unfair.
Bentley was educationally sub normal, with the mental age of a child. He was hanged nonetheless.
That was the one I was thinking of.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". This might have meant "let the police officer have the gun", or "shoot the police officer". No one knows. Anyway, the other perp shot the police officer. He was too young to hang, and he is still alive today. Bentley's trial was widely regarded, then and now, as unfair.
Bentley was educationally sub normal, with the mental age of a child. He was hanged nonetheless.
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.
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.
All guilty of murder, Joint Venture?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.
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.
Going to guess that the fact the cop was shot while trying to apprehend them is quite different to them waving the gun during the robbery.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.
As the gun wasn’t used for the robbery it’s not armed robbery for some of them.
But Peter gets done for resisting arrest and shooting a cop.
Then again – it does say ‘at the scene of the robbery’.
So perhaps that’s still considered to be during the robbers, which means it is armed robbery.
I know you can get done for armed robbery with a fake gun.
But I’m not sure it would be called armed robbery if they didn’t even pretend to have a gun during the robbery.
I’m guessing that there’s a law that says if you are committing a misdemeanour with someone and that becomes a felony then you get charged with the felony too – but that could just be something I gleaned from too many TV cop shows.
Oh, Peter could get done for carrying a concealed weapon too.
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.
Snowboy said:
wolves_wanderer said:
Negative Creep said:
Would you feel the same if it was 2 chavs in their Saxos who got off the hook?
If it can't be proved which one was which and who was speeding then yes.If 2 people rob a bank in gorilla suits and the police aren’t sure which one was which, they can still both be arrested for bank robbery.
as I understand it (and IANAL) the whole system is based on the premise that you have to have evidence you did something, and enough of it to convince 12 of your peers.
much as I don't like the fact they were obviously speeding, if you can't say who was on what bike etc then you have no idea who was doing the bigger speed. bikes still have registrations and the officers should have written names etc down, so they let down the cps in that way.
if both had been done by laser I would say they should have both been done equally, but when one is just observed to look like they are catching the other, I would suggest its too easy to assume they were both speeding (yes I know they probably were, but we don't have proof).
now know that the Bib will tell me I am wrong and they are trained etc, and yes the mk1 eyeball is very good, but in this day and age, it should not be counted on as the be all and end all of a speeding argument, just a reason to take measurements with accurate equipment.
To be honest after reading about the lad on here who's had a hell of a month, if I was the 2 officers I would learn from it, but also be a bit peeved with the CPS for structuring their case badly from the sounds of it. Quite often (myself included) we get annoyed about cases going on and moan about Bib and their heavy handed approach etc, when in fact the object of our ire should be the CPS 90% of the time.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff