Another laser jammer user in North Yorkshire

[anonymous-user]

Along the lines of https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

She must have pleaded not guilty as there is a jury involved and a two day hearing

This time it was a suspended sentence (9 months) and £2k

https://northyorkshire.police.uk/news/woman-laser-...

"This is the seventh person to be successfully prosecuted in North Yorkshire for using a laser jammer device"

and a local press report

https://www.minsterfm.com/news/local/2866699/woman...

Doesn't seem as if the guilty plea in the other case really carried much weight does it?

[untakenname]

Tried locking onto her four times so she's only got herself to blame, if she used a better jammer it would have sounded an alert then disabled itself a couple of seconds after the initial ping by the laser.

Aside from that the install looks really shoddy as well, could have placed the head unit on the grill more discreetly and wired it better.

She doesn't fit the typical user profile so could have played the ignorance card and claimed it was already fitted before she received the car.

Modern cars now have 'active' safety features which include scanning lasers operating on the same wavelength as the speed guns, victims may have a better defence rather than a 'parking aid'.

[agtlaw]

JPJPJP said:

Doesn't seem as if the guilty plea in the other case really carried much weight does it?

Odd comment. The Court of Appeal was very critical of the sentencing judge; the appellant's guilty plea was one of the reasons that a suspended sentence was substituted for an immediate custodial sentence. You should read the transcript.

[sim72]

My only reaction to all of these cases is that you've surely got to be mentally deficient to drive round with one of these in a county where camera vans issue a ticket, on average, every 10 minutes.

Especially so given that in 5 out of the 6 cases that I can find, the cameras were in very commonly used locations (A59, A19, A170, A64, A658) and the people caught were locals.

Edited by sim72 on Tuesday 7th May 12:47

[speedking31]

sim72 said:

My only reaction to all of these cases is that you've surely got to be mentally deficient to get caught driving round with one of these in a county where camera vans issue a ticket, on average, every 10 minutes.

You know nothing of anyone that hasn't been caught.

[sim72]

speedking31 said:

sim72 said:

My only reaction to all of these cases is that you've surely got to be mentally deficient to get caught driving round with one of these in a county where camera vans issue a ticket, on average, every 10 minutes.

You know nothing of anyone that hasn't been caught.

Obviously not, but none of these devices are perfect, so would you risk £100 & 3pts (or a SAC) versus a criminal record, possible jail sentence and/or community service and a fine in 4 figures? Why would you do that?

[tigger1]

sim72 said:

speedking31 said:

sim72 said:

My only reaction to all of these cases is that you've surely got to be mentally deficient to get caught driving round with one of these in a county where camera vans issue a ticket, on average, every 10 minutes.

You know nothing of anyone that hasn't been caught.

Obviously not, but none of these devices are perfect, so would you risk £100 & 3pts (or a SAC) versus a criminal record, possible jail sentence and/or community service and a fine in 4 figures? Why would you do that?

How many people have evaded detection (at licence losing speeds) by using a jammer and not been caught? If that number is high enough, then you have your answer - but we'll never know!

[anonymous-user]

agtlaw said:

Odd comment. The Court of Appeal was very critical of the sentencing judge; the appellant's guilty plea was one of the reasons that a suspended sentence was substituted for an immediate custodial sentence. You should read the transcript.

He entered a guilty plea and got locked up. She entered not guilty, but was guilty according to the jury and did not get locked up

Yes, his sentence was subsequently suspended, but he has had a week or so inside and she has not.

Whatever the CoA said about the original sentence, it doesn’t alter the fact that he did do that time in prison.

I stand by my call that the guilty plea in his case didn’t carry sufficient weight

[Roger Irrelevant]

tigger1 said:

sim72 said:

speedking31 said:

sim72 said:

My only reaction to all of these cases is that you've surely got to be mentally deficient to get caught driving round with one of these in a county where camera vans issue a ticket, on average, every 10 minutes.

You know nothing of anyone that hasn't been caught.

Obviously not, but none of these devices are perfect, so would you risk £100 & 3pts (or a SAC) versus a criminal record, possible jail sentence and/or community service and a fine in 4 figures? Why would you do that?

How many people have evaded detection (at licence losing speeds) by using a jammer and not been caught? If that number is high enough, then you have your answer - but we'll never know!

Yeah but surely they don't know either! Anyway, I suspect the answer to the question of 'why do people risk it?' is because they don't realise that the penalty for getting caught using one is potentially much more severe than getting caught speeding.

[agtlaw]

JPJPJP said:

He entered a guilty plea and got locked up. She entered not guilty, but was guilty according to the jury and did not get locked up

Yes, his sentence was subsequently suspended, but he has had a week or so inside and she has not.

Whatever the CoA said about the original sentence, it doesn’t alter the fact that he did do that time in prison.

I stand by my call that the guilty plea in his case didn’t carry sufficient weight

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal! A crown court judge got it wrong and the Court of Appeal corrected the sentence. Read the judgment to understand the reasoning.

[EU_Foreigner]

Strange to have the device set to permanently jam when they all have a feature to set it to x amount of seconds.

I have a Cheetah, did not know anything could be wired to them though (and is only a GPS based detector).

[Red 4]

agtlaw said:

A crown court judge got it wrong

I assume you are referring to the car salesman you represented at appeal ?

I think that's all jpjp needs to know - the Judge got it wrong.

[anonymous-user]

agtlaw said:

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal! A crown court judge got it wrong and the Court of Appeal corrected the sentence. Read the judgment to understand the reasoning.

Did he actually spend any time at all in prison?

[Turfy]

JPJPJP said:

agtlaw said:

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal! A crown court judge got it wrong and the Court of Appeal corrected the sentence. Read the judgment to understand the reasoning.

Did he actually spend any time at all in prison?

According to your post above at 1351hrs, yes:

"Yes, his sentence was subsequently suspended, but he has had a week or so inside and she has not."

Edited by Turfy on Tuesday 7th May 17:07

[Dave Hedgehog]

its a shame no one has the money to fight the abuse of captcha all function creep of PCoJ

its as bad as the when the old bill used to nick people for using speed gun detectors under the 1949 Wireless and Telegraphy Act

totally morally corrupt legal system ...

[vonhosen]

Dave Hedgehog said:

its a shame no one has the money to fight the abuse of captcha all function creep of PCoJ

its as bad as the when the old bill used to nick people for using speed gun detectors under the 1949 Wireless and Telegraphy Act

totally morally corrupt legal system ...

Of course there are some people that have the money to do it.
Perhaps they've been advised that it would be a waste of their money though or failing that they simply don't care about it.

Crowd fund it if you like. I'll spare you whatever I can find down the back of the sofa (it is a new sofa mind you).

[768]

sim72 said:

My only reaction to all of these cases is that you've surely got to be mentally deficient to drive round with one of these in a county where camera vans issue a ticket, on average, every 10 minutes.

They've slowed down then, at least I thought, it used to be one every 5 minutes.

Either way, if that's not a successful safety campaign, I don't know what is.

[EU_Foreigner]

768 said:

sim72 said:

My only reaction to all of these cases is that you've surely got to be mentally deficient to drive round with one of these in a county where camera vans issue a ticket, on average, every 10 minutes.

They've slowed down then, at least I thought, it used to be one every 5 minutes.

Either way, if that's not a successful safety campaign, I don't know what is.

I would not describe it as a successful safety campaign, more like a successful oppression.

[JNW1]

768 said:

sim72 said:

My only reaction to all of these cases is that you've surely got to be mentally deficient to drive round with one of these in a county where camera vans issue a ticket, on average, every 10 minutes.

They've slowed down then, at least I thought, it used to be one every 5 minutes.

Either way, if that's not a successful safety campaign, I don't know what is.

Depends on your definition of a successful safety campaign I suppose. However, all these mobile cameras haven't done anything to improve the KSI figures on the roads of North Yorkshire so using that as the yardstick the campaign's arguably not very successful at all......

[kestral]

JPJPJP said:

He entered a guilty plea and got locked up. She entered not guilty, but was guilty according to the jury and did not get locked up

Yes, his sentence was subsequently suspended, but he has had a week or so inside and she has not.

Whatever the CoA said about the original sentence, it doesn’t alter the fact that he did do that time in prison.

I stand by my call that the guilty plea in his case didn’t carry sufficient weight

One set of sentencing rules for men and another for women.Happening every day in the courts.
'Sugur and spice and all things nice' embeded into the mind at young age.