Eight months for using a laser jammer ?!! Wtf

[The Rookie]

loggo said:

"The speed camera operator points the camera at vehicles he/she has formed the opinion is exceeding the speed limit"

Do they ? I had an idea they just selected a point on the road and left the camera on automatic while they read the paper ?

Difficult as
1/ The laser devices have no auto mode
2/ The operator is required as a witness to corroborate the reading
3/ It's a laser, and while not a pencil beam it does need aiming and then the 'trigger pulled'.

[vonhosen]

cmaguire said:

Derek Smith said:

At the risk of trying to answer the implied question of the OP, I reckon that this is a nonsensical sentence. There are other ways to punish.

Prison should be kept for those who are a threat to society or have shown themselves reluctant to learn from non-custodial sentences. This bloke is taking up a space in prison that could be the pied a terre of a habitual burglar, a rapist or similar offender who should enjoy an extended stay.

Yet we see directions from the HO to release prisoners after a low proportion of their sentence has been served.

But he was perverting the course of justice Derek, so he really is a danger to society.
Or the egos of those running it.

It's nothing to do with egos, but you are right that perverting the course of justice is a danger to society.
If you can be allowed to do it without a sanction that is going to make almost all think twice about it, it'll become de rigueur & that will be bad for us.

[bad company]

vonhosen said:

It's nothing to do with egos, but you are right that perverting the course of justice is a danger to society.
If you can be allowed to do it without a sanction that is going to make almost all think twice about it, it'll become de rigueur & that will be bad for us.

I don’t think anybody is saying that he didn’t deserve to be punished but the sentence seems excessive. Why was a custodial sentence needed?

[bad company]

Derek Smith said:

At the risk of trying to answer the implied question of the OP, I reckon that this is a nonsensical sentence. There are other ways to punish.

Prison should be kept for those who are a threat to society or have shown themselves reluctant to learn from non-custodial sentences. This bloke is taking up a space in prison that could be the pied a terre of a habitual burglar, a rapist or similar offender who should enjoy an extended stay.

Yet we see directions from the HO to release prisoners after a low proportion of their sentence has been served.

This, 100%.

[Greendubber]

bad company said:

vonhosen said:

It's nothing to do with egos, but you are right that perverting the course of justice is a danger to society.
If you can be allowed to do it without a sanction that is going to make almost all think twice about it, it'll become de rigueur & that will be bad for us.

I don’t think anybody is saying that he didn’t deserve to be punished but the sentence seems excessive. Why was a custodial sentence needed?

Do you know the offending history of the chap sentenced? That would have had some bearing I'm sure.

[ghe13rte]

The Rookie said:

loggo said:

"The speed camera operator points the camera at vehicles he/she has formed the opinion is exceeding the speed limit"

Do they ? I had an idea they just selected a point on the road and left the camera on automatic while they read the paper ?

Difficult as
1/ The laser devices have no auto mode
2/ The operator is required as a witness to corroborate the reading
3/ It's a laser, and while not a pencil beam it does need aiming and then the 'trigger pulled'.

1/ Some do some don't
2/ Not on all occasions, sometimes the corroboration is by other means
3/ Not all laser devices have a trigger

0/3 Must try harder.

Self-acquired knowledge via the Internet can be dangerously applied. Maybe consider not giving advice in future.

[andy_s]

bad company said:

I don’t think anybody is saying that he didn’t deserve to be punished but the sentence seems excessive. Why was a custodial sentence needed?

The Judge gave his reason.

Derek: It's highly unlikely that a rapist will be unable to be sent down because this guy is occupying a cell, and while I understand the nuance, it's a bit of a clumsy extrapolation. I also doubt he will actually do more than about 8 weeks in chokey before being released on licence, so again, let's not get too carried away with thinking it's such an onerous punishment.

Frankly, common-sense dictates that if you literally or metaphorically stick two fingers up at the law while committing an offence and compounding that by obfuscating justice, you are likely to have the law take a dim view and receive a belting if nothing else 'pour encourager les autres'. Being pragmatic, the guy almost literally asked for the book to be thrown at him, and throw it they did, but I bet a few people are reconsidering their use of such a device, which was the point of the sentence in the first place.

I can't say I'm going to lose much sleep over it, my gut feeling is he's a chump who reaped what he sowed.

[Greendubber]

vonhosen said:

Dhol01 said:

It is about teaching joe public who is boss. No resources to police burglaries but unlimited resources to police speed. Your priorities are not the priorities of the majority.

Best plaice this on your other shoulder so that you don't put your back out with the uneven weight.

I think you're spot on with that Von. I've asked twice now for some kind of proof of these claims of unlimited resources for speed enforcement etc but shock horror.... I'm being ignored.

Maybe because Dhol01 thinks it's true, it must be true (even though it's not)

[Durzel]

bad company said:

vonhosen said:

It's nothing to do with egos, but you are right that perverting the course of justice is a danger to society.
If you can be allowed to do it without a sanction that is going to make almost all think twice about it, it'll become de rigueur & that will be bad for us.

I don’t think anybody is saying that he didn’t deserve to be punished but the sentence seems excessive. Why was a custodial sentence needed?

Again, time and time again people can't seem to separate the original offence, whatever that might be or however trivial it was, with the offence of Perverting the Course of Justice.

The motoring offence is irrelevant once you start subverting the justice system. Once you are charged with Perverting the Course of Justice, you are on the hook for a custodial sentence, rarely a suspended one. It does not matter what you originally did that led you to get charged with this, it's the actions you took subsequently to obscure the crime that count.

People seem to be blinded to this simple fact time and time again. He didn't get 8 months for flipping off the camera operator, he didn't get 8 months for speeding. He didn't even get 8 months for possessing a laser jammer (which are legal to sell, buy and fit - but not to use to defeat speed enforcement devices). He got 8 months for disposing of evidence material to a criminal investigation.

[Durzel]

Derek Smith said:

At the risk of trying to answer the implied question of the OP, I reckon that this is a nonsensical sentence. There are other ways to punish.

Prison should be kept for those who are a threat to society or have shown themselves reluctant to learn from non-custodial sentences. This bloke is taking up a space in prison that could be the pied a terre of a habitual burglar, a rapist or similar offender who should enjoy an extended stay.

Yet we see directions from the HO to release prisoners after a low proportion of their sentence has been served.

Perverting the Course of Justice is a catch-all offence that can follow from a number of very serious crimes. Concealment of a body in a murder investigation, forgery, blocking a speed reading on a laser device - are just three random examples of things that might have led someone to be charged with it. Once you are charged with it - whatever you were under investigation for becomes largely irrelevant, as it should be...

In my opinion it is very important to the fabric of society that the justice system is seen to be resilient. If, as implied, PtCoJ is to be prosecuted with regard to what someone originally did or might've done that caused them to pervert, then this guy would've got barely more than a slap on the wrist. What sort of message does that send to others? How tenable is the justice system if lying or fabricating or destroying evidence is no big deal?

With respect I don't think you (and others) seem to realise how important the inviolability of the justice system is in maintaining general order in society. If lying to the Police becomes a trivial act, with punishments proportional to whatever the original offence was, then considerably more people will do it - and clearly the justice system can't function properly when that is the case.

And the whole "prisons are full, what about the rapists and murderers!" is a specious argument.

[warch]

It is essential for a functioning system of law that people who lie under oath are punished severely, regardless of the offence they've committed.

[The Rookie]

ghe13rte said:

1/ Some do some don't
2/ Not on all occasions, sometimes the corroboration is by other means
3/ Not all laser devices have a trigger

0/3 Must try harder.

Self-acquired knowledge via the Internet can be dangerously applied. Maybe consider not giving advice in future.

Which Uk type approved device has that functionality? Always happy to learn.

Not just internet, 2 friends in the force, one traffic (well retired 2 months back) who got involved with the camera team.

[The Selfish Gene]

has anybody covered if he was actually speeding?

or is that irrelevant, because he used an illegal jammer and then tried to dispose of it when challenged?

They actually went to the trouble and expense of sending divers into a river to recover the illegal device?

they must have really hated the guy for another reason.

In other news the murder rate is up .

[Derek Smith]

vonhosen said:

It's nothing to do with egos, but you are right that perverting the course of justice is a danger to society.
If you can be allowed to do it without a sanction that is going to make almost all think twice about it, it'll become de rigueur & that will be bad for us.

No one, least of all me, has suggested no sanction would be appropriate in this case.

There does seem to be this uncritical acceptance that punishment must mean imprisonment. All the research points to it being unproductive yet people still seem to suggest that if someone isn't banged up they've got away with whatever crime they have been found guilty of. We won't move on in justice until such archaic ideas are negated. Mind you, they are negated now by those who can be bothered to look.

The idea that if someone doesn't go to prison everyone else will do it is nonsense of course and also a poor argument.

It beggars belief that we are still imprisoning more than almost every other European country when a cheaper alternative has been shown to be much more effective in umpteen other countries.

[andy_s]

The Selfish Gene said:

has anybody covered if he was actually speeding?

or is that irrelevant, because he used an illegal jammer and then tried to dispose of it when challenged?

They actually went to the trouble and expense of sending divers into a river to recover the illegal device?

they must have really hated the guy for another reason.

In other news the murder rate is up .

We don't know if he was speeding, you may have missed it but he was using a jammer.

It's strange how you ascribe that him 'being hated' accounts for a diligent investigation, do you think we should just let it go if it gets a bit tricky or not bother at all if he's a nice chap?

In other news the price of eggs is down.

Edited by andy_s on Wednesday 25th April 12:40

[The Selfish Gene]

if the guy wasn't speeding, (and one could argue even if he was) this is a totally victimless crime.

Custodial sentence is not appropriate

[andy_s]

Derek Smith said:

No one, least of all me, has suggested no sanction would be appropriate in this case.

There does seem to be this uncritical acceptance that punishment must mean imprisonment. All the research points to it being unproductive yet people still seem to suggest that if someone isn't banged up they've got away with whatever crime they have been found guilty of. We won't move on in justice until such archaic ideas are negated. Mind you, they are negated now by those who can be bothered to look.

The idea that if someone doesn't go to prison everyone else will do it is nonsense of course and also a poor argument.

It beggars belief that we are still imprisoning more than almost every other European country when a cheaper alternative has been shown to be much more effective in umpteen other countries.

But Derek, the very consternation here of the severity of the sentence would seem to suggest that it would indeed have a large dissuasive effect; this isn't Ronnie Kray territory, this is more ordinary Joes trying to be a bit smart and get out of speeding detection. The risk/reward balance for ordinary Joes has been significantly shifted I'd say.

As to your more general thoughts on the actual effect of incarceration on recidivism and reform across the wider criminal landscape, I would agree wholeheartedly. It's a blunt instrument, but in this case I would venture it's driven home a particular nail.

[ciege]

Good

Sends a clear message, no room or need for such devices (and yes in my time I've had one too)

Following a speed limit isn't hard, we have fking massive great signs telling us a simple number which we match up on the dash and stick to it!

Now, not saying I do all the time, but:

a. if you speed or employ devices to pervert the course of justice then fk you good and proper

b. if you think this is too harsh and that this law isn't really a law then do please tell me where the line is, is it pissing in your garden, punching your wife, stealing your car, or burning down your house, are these proper crimes enough for you?

c. and this is the most important one - if you can't do the time, don't do the crime - idiots!

[The Selfish Gene]

andy_s said:

The Selfish Gene said:

has anybody covered if he was actually speeding?

or is that irrelevant, because he used an illegal jammer and then tried to dispose of it when challenged?

They actually went to the trouble and expense of sending divers into a river to recover the illegal device?

they must have really hated the guy for another reason.

In other news the murder rate is up .

We don't know if he was speeding, you may have missed it but he was using a jammer.

It's strange how you ascribe him that him 'being hated' accounts for a diligent investigation, do you think we should just let it go if it gets a bit tricky or not bother at all if he's a nice chap?

In other news the price of eggs is down.

no I got that........the jammer part. Hence they didn't know if he was speeding, so lets say they couldn't prove he was, so therefore legally he wasn't speeding.

No I don't think he should be let go, more so for being an idiot at giving the finger to the scamera vans. Although I've done that loads of times myself don't think I should get 8 months for it.

So that leaves the jammer.............so is 8 months custodial appropriate for using a scammer? I think that seems a bit heavy handed. Hence my comment to pursue this to this level........they must have already had a problem with the guy.

Or they like wasting money when the crime rate is massively high - and all this guy is ultimately doing is being a bit of a cocky tt really.

[The Rookie]

andy_s said:

The risk/reward balance for ordinary Joes has been significantly shifted I'd say.

Chris Huhne and Vicky Price got similar 5 years ago, and before that there were other cases with 9-12 months sentence for naming the 'wrong' driver, nothing has shifted, the penalty for PCoJ has stayed about the same for motoring offences in my opinion.