Discussion
smeggy said:
vonhosen said:
In the case of this man, the prosecution proved to the satisfaction of the court that the man wilfully (with intent) obstructed the officers doing speed enforcement.
On balance yes, but I reckon it might have been possible to get him off on appeal using arguments of current signage and fake civvie signage.
The appeal courts have said that they are quite happy the courts can make the distinction of when someone is attempting to help someone evade capture by frustrating a constable in the execution of their duty or not. The courts made that distinction in this case.
vonhosen said:
The appeal courts have said that they are quite happy the courts can make the distinction of when someone is attempting to help someone evade capture by frustrating a constable in the execution of their duty or not. The courts made that distinction in this case.
I'll take your word for that, but is that right or is it just another convenient 'fudgement' against the motorist?
smeggy said:
vonhosen said:
The appeal courts have said that they are quite happy the courts can make the distinction of when someone is attempting to help someone evade capture by frustrating a constable in the execution of their duty or not. The courts made that distinction in this case.
I'll take your word for that, but is that right or is it just another convenient 'fudgement' against the motorist?
A quote referred to in the appeal aquittal of Mr Glendinning
"In my opinion it is quite easy to distinguish the cases where a warning is given with the object of preventing the commission of a crime from the cases in which the crime is being commited and the warning is given in order that the commission of the crime should be suspended while there is danger of detection"
vonhosen said:
A quote referred to in the appeal aquittal of Mr Glendinning
"In my opinion it is quite easy to distinguish the cases where a warning is given with the object of preventing the commission of a crime from the cases in which the crime is being commited and the warning is given in order that the commission of the crime should be suspended while there is danger of detection"
"In my opinion it is quite easy to distinguish the cases where a warning is given with the object of preventing the commission of a crime from the cases in which the crime is being commited and the warning is given in order that the commission of the crime should be suspended while there is danger of detection"
Here's another quote regarding that case:
"it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that the people who were warned were either exceeding the speed limit or were likely to be exceeding the speed limit at the location of the speed trap."
Another:
"Mr Justice Owen suggested that the police should be grateful towards the attempt by a citizen to prevent others speeding"
BTW, the person referred to earlier in the thread was actually Stuart Harding - a person who did the same but was found guilty regardless, he was the one who was disqualified.
smeggy said:
vonhosen said:
A quote referred to in the appeal aquittal of Mr Glendinning
"In my opinion it is quite easy to distinguish the cases where a warning is given with the object of preventing the commission of a crime from the cases in which the crime is being commited and the warning is given in order that the commission of the crime should be suspended while there is danger of detection"
"In my opinion it is quite easy to distinguish the cases where a warning is given with the object of preventing the commission of a crime from the cases in which the crime is being commited and the warning is given in order that the commission of the crime should be suspended while there is danger of detection"
Here's another quote regarding that case:
"it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that the people who were warned were either exceeding the speed limit or were likely to be exceeding the speed limit at the location of the speed trap."
No argument with that, but as per the cases quoted in that ruling the "proof" required of an offence taking place is only primary evidence of speeding (ie officer's opinion).
smeggy said:
Another:
"Mr Justice Owen suggested that the police should be grateful towards the attempt by a citizen to prevent others speeding"
No argument with that either, where the attempt is to persuade others not to be speed wholesale & not just to obstruct an officer engaged in enforcement action.
smeggy said:
BTW, the person referred to earlier in the thread was actually Stuart Harding - a person who did the same but was found guilty regardless, he was the one who was disqualified.
I am aware of that & as I said earlier despite what he stated in court, the court were of the opinion that he was obstructing an officer as per the arguments we have been discussing.
vonhosen said:
smeggy said:
BTW, the person referred to earlier in the thread was actually Stuart Harding - a person who did the same but was found guilty regardless, he was the one who was disqualified.
I am aware of that & as I said earlier despite what he stated in court, the court were of the opinion that he was obstructing an officer as per the arguments we have been discussing.
So given the fact the outcomes were different for the two cases, what was the fundamental difference between them?
A: Mr Glendinning opted to fight - for 2 years - to clear his name; Mr Harding (71) didn’t have the will (although he planned to).
I fear we have muddied the water a little but this does bring us back to a previous point:
Is it right that an offender’s punishment is fundamentally unrelated to their offence?
A: probably, probably not!
More importantly: is it conducive to society to be taking away the offender’s means of income? (as opposed to just a chunk of it, or community service). As you already said, it is an option open to the judge but ......
smeggy said:
...... do you trust the courts to hand out common sense judgements and sentences?
Given the fact that Mr Glendinning’s appeal was successful – my answer would have to be no!
smeggy said:
vonhosen said:
smeggy said:
BTW, the person referred to earlier in the thread was actually Stuart Harding - a person who did the same but was found guilty regardless, he was the one who was disqualified.
I am aware of that & as I said earlier despite what he stated in court, the court were of the opinion that he was obstructing an officer as per the arguments we have been discussing.
So given the fact the outcomes were different for the two cases, what was the fundamental difference between them?
A: Mr Glendinning opted to fight - for 2 years - to clear his name; Mr Harding (71) didn’t have the will (although he planned to).
I fear we have muddied the water a little but this does bring us back to a previous point:
Is it right that an offender’s punishment is fundamentally unrelated to their offence?
A: probably, probably not!
More importantly: is it conducive to society to be taking away the offender’s means of income? (as opposed to just a chunk of it, or community service). As you already said, it is an option open to the judge but ......
smeggy said:
...... do you trust the courts to hand out common sense judgements and sentences?
Given the fact that Mr Glendinning’s appeal was successful – my answer would have to be no!
Firstly I disagree Re disqualifications.
Secondly Mr Glendinning's successful appeal centred on the aspect that Police hadn't given primary evidence that anyone was speeding, not that his actions themselves wouldn't have amounted to an obstruction should that primary evidence have been provided.
vonhosen said:
Secondly Mr Glendinning's successful appeal centred on the aspect that Police hadn't given primary evidence that anyone was speeding, not that his actions themselves wouldn't have amounted to an obstruction should that primary evidence have been provided.
And this wouldn't apply to Stuart Harding - how?
Anyway, it's irrelevant: Mr Glendinning’s appeal was successful - the previous judge got it wrong (which was my point).
smeggy said:
vonhosen said:
Secondly Mr Glendinning's successful appeal centred on the aspect that Police hadn't given primary evidence that anyone was speeding, not that his actions themselves wouldn't have amounted to an obstruction should that primary evidence have been provided.
And this wouldn't apply to Stuart Harding - how?
Do you know that Police didn't produce primary evidence of speeding in Mr Harding's case ?
On any reports I read on that case this wasn't an issue of contention.
smeggy said:
Anyway, it's irrelevant: Mr Glendinning’s appeal was successful - the previous judge got it wrong (which was my point).
What are you suggesting ?
Because we have an appeals system as part of our justice process & because sometimes on points of law it over rules original verdicts, then we should bin the courts ?
What justice system do you offer as an alternative if that is the case ?
vonhosen said:
Do you know that Police didn't produce primary evidence of speeding in Mr Harding's case ?
On any reports I read on that case this wasn't an issue of contention.
On any reports I read on that case this wasn't an issue of contention.
That’s because Mr Harding’s barrister bent like a leaf in the wind and Mr Harding didn’t appeal.
vonhosen said:
What are you suggesting ?
Because we have an appeals system as part of our justice process & because sometimes on points of law it over rules original verdicts, then we should bin the courts ?
What justice system do you offer as an alternative if that is the case ?
Because we have an appeals system as part of our justice process & because sometimes on points of law it over rules original verdicts, then we should bin the courts ?
What justice system do you offer as an alternative if that is the case ?
One that consistently uses reasonable law and that hands out sensible and proportional penalties for the crime committed - unlike our current ‘100mph on a clear straight motorway means a likely ban’
While we are here: I would really really like to see polygraph tests used as standard in our courts – no more taking people’s ‘word for it’. Rapists, paedophiles, murderers, fraudsters, etc getting away with it would soon become a thing of the past. In fact, the biggest fraudsters of them all – the politicians, will very quickly be brought to book, which might explain why there is currently no chance of any such policy being adopted. Perhaps this needs a new thread!
Having seen this film [url] www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=295835&f=10&h=0[/url] any ideas on the direction we're heading in? 
smeggy said:
vonhosen said:
Do you know that Police didn't produce primary evidence of speeding in Mr Harding's case ?
On any reports I read on that case this wasn't an issue of contention.
On any reports I read on that case this wasn't an issue of contention.
That’s because Mr Harding’s barrister bent like a leaf in the wind and Mr Harding didn’t appeal.
Do you know for certain that the Police could not provide primary evidence of vehicles speeding though ?
smeggy said:
vonhosen said:
What are you suggesting ?
Because we have an appeals system as part of our justice process & because sometimes on points of law it over rules original verdicts, then we should bin the courts ?
What justice system do you offer as an alternative if that is the case ?
Because we have an appeals system as part of our justice process & because sometimes on points of law it over rules original verdicts, then we should bin the courts ?
What justice system do you offer as an alternative if that is the case ?
One that consistently uses reasonable law and that hands out sensible and proportional penalties for the crime committed - unlike our current ‘100mph on a clear straight motorway means a likely ban’
Well that is your opinion of unreasonable law, but it doesn't necessarily follow that everybody else holds the same view that such a thing is unreasonable.
vonhosen said:
Do you know for certain that the Police could not provide primary evidence of vehicles speeding though ?
And do you know otherwise?
Given that they couldn’t in Mr Glendinning's case I wouldn't fancy their chances.
vonhosen said:
Well that is your opinion of unreasonable law, but it doesn't necessarily follow that everybody else holds the same view that such a thing is unreasonable.
We could start a poll......
smeggy said:
vonhosen said:
Do you know for certain that the Police could not provide primary evidence of vehicles speeding though ?
And do you know otherwise?
Given that they couldn’t in Mr Glendinning's case I wouldn't fancy their chances.
As he was convicted & you obviously don't have any information to the contrary, we'll have to leave it that you have no idea that Mr Glendinning's defence applies.
As I'd make sure personally that in any prosecution I would provide that evidence, I might fancy their chances
smeggy said:
vonhosen said:
Well that is your opinion of unreasonable law, but it doesn't necessarily follow that everybody else holds the same view that such a thing is unreasonable.
We could start a poll......
By all means.
Where do you want to do it ?
Here ?
Brake ?
Obviously where you do it & who is bothered to respond will be the greatest factors in any result.
The fact remains that we elected selective governments (with various parties having the majority controlling interest) over the past 40 years, that put in place those laws/sentencing guidelines & they haven't changed much. I can't see any government has been voted out over the issue of people being banned for 100+.
Do you see it changing with the next government ?
Because I don't.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 7th August 21:11
vonhosen said:
As he was convicted & you obviously don't have any information to the contrary, we'll have to leave it that you have no idea that Mr Glendinning's defence applies.
BUT, as Mr Harding didn’t appeal, we'll have to leave it that you have no idea that it doesn’t.
vonhosen said:
As I'd make sure personally that in any prosecution I would provide that evidence, I might fancy their chances
I’m sure that after 2 years and a lot to lose, I would think they would have put a lot of effort into doing everything possible to win their case. Unless you could have provided something new, which I doubt (please do explain how if you think you could), I wouldn’t fancy yours.
vonhosen said:
The fact remains that we elected selective governments (with various parties having the majority controlling interest) over the past 40 years, that put in place those laws/sentencing guidelines & they haven't changed much. I can't see any government has been voted out over the issue of people being banned for 100+.
Do you see it changing with the next government ?
Because I don't.
Do you see it changing with the next government ?
Because I don't.
That’s a defeatist attitude, exactly what our government (and parties with controlling interest) wants! Besides, it doesn’t mean the rest of us can’t moan about it
Perhaps if enough of us moan we might see something done....
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff