Police driver suspended for 140mph
Discussion
10 Pence Short said:
I would imagine the speed of itself would not be reason the defence fails (in the same way it wouldn't be evidence of dangerous driving) but it may be evidence against it. For example, in the instant case, if the officer had been driving at 85mph to get the prisoner to the station before a particular time, that speed may support the defence. If, however, the officer is travelling at nearly twice that speed it may be evidence that the exemption was not being used lawfully.
Can you cite a case where that has been the case?vonhosen said:
...I've yet to see any case where an officer could be said to have been OK to only exceed the limit by a given amount & not a higher speed (in relation to the speed exemption). If the speed were too high I've only seen that dealt with as in relation to careless/dangerous, nothing to do with the speed limit exemption.
Can you provide a case where someone claiming the exemption has been convicted & the exemption claim refused on the basis of the chosen speed (in relation to the speed exemption only)?
If POs aren't being prosecuted on that basis we are unlikely to see a conviction on that basis.Can you provide a case where someone claiming the exemption has been convicted & the exemption claim refused on the basis of the chosen speed (in relation to the speed exemption only)?
vonhosen said:
Can you cite a case where that has been the case?
No. Though that doesn't mean it does not or cannot happen.There have been precious few precedents regarding Police and their use of speeding exemptions generally. It's as if not many cases come to court...
What is your interpretation regarding the High Court's comments in Milton?
10 Pence Short said:
vonhosen said:
Can you cite a case where that has been the case?
No. Though that doesn't mean it does not or cannot happen.There have been precious few precedents regarding Police and their use of speeding exemptions generally. It's as if not many cases come to court...
What is your interpretation regarding the High Court's comments in Milton?
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. 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.
Your point being what, Von?
There was no binding finding, although the court did make comment. There are no precedents to support a notion that the exemption cannot be decided on degree and the facts of the case. The comments in Milton positively support the fact that it can and should. Note the High Court criticised the district judge for failing to address each occasion on its own merits. Were degree incapable of being a factor, their comments on that matter would be otiose.
There was no binding finding, although the court did make comment. There are no precedents to support a notion that the exemption cannot be decided on degree and the facts of the case. The comments in Milton positively support the fact that it can and should. Note the High Court criticised the district judge for failing to address each occasion on its own merits. Were degree incapable of being a factor, their comments on that matter would be otiose.
vonhosen said:
I don't know.
Was there any Police purpose time dependent in dealing with him?
As an example
It has been held that a Police officer speeding in his own car who was running late for court, lawfully used the exemption by speeding.
It was for a Police purpose (Court) & sticking to the limit would have caused hindrance to that purpose (potentially case thrown out).
However Police driver's regs say you won't speed to get to court (in a Police vehicle let alone your own).
Apologies for this - I know nothing about the practicalities so can't offer any useful contribution, just ask questions. Was there any Police purpose time dependent in dealing with him?
As an example
It has been held that a Police officer speeding in his own car who was running late for court, lawfully used the exemption by speeding.
It was for a Police purpose (Court) & sticking to the limit would have caused hindrance to that purpose (potentially case thrown out).
However Police driver's regs say you won't speed to get to court (in a Police vehicle let alone your own).
Court starts at a prescribed time. If the witness isn't there then there's a risk that the tribunal won't wait and will throw the case out. So I can see there's a reason to speed if doing so might make the difference between getting to court on time and not doing so.
But what are the deadlines/sanctions/risks at play when transporting a prisoner? Genuinely have no knowledge of this area.
Greg66 said:
vonhosen said:
I don't know.
Was there any Police purpose time dependent in dealing with him?
As an example
It has been held that a Police officer speeding in his own car who was running late for court, lawfully used the exemption by speeding.
It was for a Police purpose (Court) & sticking to the limit would have caused hindrance to that purpose (potentially case thrown out).
However Police driver's regs say you won't speed to get to court (in a Police vehicle let alone your own).
Apologies for this - I know nothing about the practicalities so can't offer any useful contribution, just ask questions. Was there any Police purpose time dependent in dealing with him?
As an example
It has been held that a Police officer speeding in his own car who was running late for court, lawfully used the exemption by speeding.
It was for a Police purpose (Court) & sticking to the limit would have caused hindrance to that purpose (potentially case thrown out).
However Police driver's regs say you won't speed to get to court (in a Police vehicle let alone your own).
Court starts at a prescribed time. If the witness isn't there then there's a risk that the tribunal won't wait and will throw the case out. So I can see there's a reason to speed if doing so might make the difference between getting to court on time and not doing so.
But what are the deadlines/sanctions/risks at play when transporting a prisoner? Genuinely have no knowledge of this area.
As an example, of dealing with prisoners & time constraints, there is a limited amount of time when dealing with prisoners (PACE clock) etc.
vonhosen said:
Each case would will depend on it's merits so individual cases will have different considerations.
As an example, of dealing with prisoners & time constraints, there is a limited amount of time when dealing with prisoners (PACE clock) etc.
I am sure what your telling us is correct but for the pc milton case doesnt sit well with me.As an example, of dealing with prisoners & time constraints, there is a limited amount of time when dealing with prisoners (PACE clock) etc.
Police driving instructor said the driving was not safe and unsound and still he back in roads policing. Were will end!
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.
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.
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.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.
jbsportstech said:
vonhosen said:
Each case would will depend on it's merits so individual cases will have different considerations.
As an example, of dealing with prisoners & time constraints, there is a limited amount of time when dealing with prisoners (PACE clock) etc.
I am sure what your telling us is correct but for the pc milton case doesnt sit well with me.As an example, of dealing with prisoners & time constraints, there is a limited amount of time when dealing with prisoners (PACE clock) etc.
Police driving instructor said the driving was not safe and unsound and still he back in roads policing. Were will end!
The parallel is would it be OK for any previous you had to be held against you for the rest of your life, or when is the debt considered paid?
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 26th January 15:49
Two points;
1) Isn't that what the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act is there for? And
2) Certain positions require higher standards than normal. For example, many allow for enhanced CRB checks and rejection of those with past offending.
It sets a poor example if those who seriously abuse a law are then allowed to continue policing it against others.
1) Isn't that what the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act is there for? And
2) Certain positions require higher standards than normal. For example, many allow for enhanced CRB checks and rejection of those with past offending.
It sets a poor example if those who seriously abuse a law are then allowed to continue policing it against others.
10 Pence Short said:
Two points;
1) Isn't that what the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act is there for? And
And what sentence was he sentenced to that fell under that scope & was not adhered to?1) Isn't that what the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act is there for? And
10 Pence Short said:
2) Certain positions require higher standards than normal. For example, many allow for enhanced CRB checks and rejection of those with past offending.
Was there anything in relation to his offence/sentencing that would disqualify him in relation to them?10 Pence Short said:
It sets a poor example if those who seriously abuse a law are then allowed to continue policing it against others.
Where their offending is a serious enough abuse of the law it can result in them no longer being able to Police etc. In the first case the courts saw fit to give him an absolute discharge & in the second he was acquitted. That doesn't suggest that they considered (with all the facts) him guilty of a serious abuse.Where does that leave the Chief Constable in his options for future consideration of the matter & when it should no longer be held against him?
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 26th January 16:08
In th case of Milton we all know the discharge was the result of an elongated and much confused legal process trying to decide on the limits of objectivity in Dangerous Driving, allied to the fact there were no victims, as such.
Had he been convicted under the proper considerations first time around he would have had no such leniency.
edited to add, as you have already pointed out, the Police have internal policies and regulations that could see Milton removed from RPU duties, as is the case in Durham subject to this thread.
Had he been convicted under the proper considerations first time around he would have had no such leniency.
edited to add, as you have already pointed out, the Police have internal policies and regulations that could see Milton removed from RPU duties, as is the case in Durham subject to this thread.
Edited by 10 Pence Short on Sunday 26th January 16:16
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...) Does sound a bit like a guilty until proven innocent job though from that report.
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.
10 Pence Short said:
In th case of Milton we all know the discharge was the result of an elongated and much confused legal process trying to decide on the limits of objectivity in Dangerous Driving, allied to the fact there were no victims, as such.
Had he been convicted under the proper considerations first time around he would have had no such leniency.
Doesn't that then apply with how his CC will have to deal with him too?Had he been convicted under the proper considerations first time around he would have had no such leniency.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff