BMW driver Cleared of driving at 156

[telecat]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4072446.stm

Anybody know the details. Looks like a Civvy operator and the guy insisting he was not driving!

[gh0st]

EAT THAT SCAMERAS!!!!

Frankly I dont care the circumstances in which he was driving, he cost them money and not vice versa

[PetrolTed]

Interesting. He denies he was driving. Why doesn't the owner of the car become liable as they do normally?

[Dougie.]

Am I being a bit daft here or has this failed becuase they could not identify who was driving the car from the video evidence?

I thought that Scamera footage could not be used to identify a driver.

Anyway, they don't like it up 'em etc etc

[granville]

Note the specification of the car make at issue within the title of this story and the spurious performance data at the end of it.

As if the transgression were magnified by the horror of that unholiest of vehicular stereotypes!

Well done, Aunty.

[parrot of doom]

Well, its in Scotland and the law is different there.

However - whoever was driving, if they were doing 156mph with a phone on their ear, they're a bit stupid.

[Dwight VanDriver]

I thought IOLAIRE was in the States???

If they never served a NOIP then the case was doomed from the start irrespective of the argument who was or who was not driving.

Wonder if this was political - one for the public?

DVD

[james_j]

"...Isobel Brydie, spokesperson for the Scottish Campaign Against Irresponsible Drivers (SCID) was disappointed with the case result.

She said: "This is something that has to be taken up by the Crown Office.

"It's not the first mistake that has been made. Mistakes can happen but it's not on when it could put lives at risk..."

What lives have been "put at risk" by the mistake? Bl00dy fool thing to say.

[DeMolay]

NIP not served in 14 days.

Game over.

[streaky]

james_j said:

"...Isobel Brydie, spokesperson for the Scottish Campaign Against Irresponsible Drivers (SCID) was disappointed with the case result. She said: "This is something that has to be taken up by the Crown Office. "It's not the first mistake that has been made. Mistakes can happen but it's not on when it could put lives at risk..." What lives have been "put at risk" by the mistake? Bl00dy fool thing to say.

His life, of course. Don't forget that PC Pete Hayward from Cosham Roads Policing Unit, said (in regard to another case): "This man obviously had no regard for his own safety or that of anyone else on the road. To travel at 155mph is absolutely lethal." ... so, if 155mph is "absolutely lethal", think what horrors an extra 4 mph would inflict - Streaky

[jeffreyarcher]

DeMolay said:

NIP not served in 14 days.

Not neccessarily.
Background: http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4632130 &
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4632619
Today was the third day; and more on today:
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=632742005

He was charged with:
1) Dangerous Driving,
2) Speeding
3) Using a mobile 'phone.
There was also mention of a number plate offence, but I don't know what happened to that. I don't know the details, but ISTR the car was carrying a personal number plate owned by him (or one of his companies), but not officially on that car (which I believe belonged to one of his companies).
4) Failure to supply (S172).
5) Culpable & reckless conduct.
There was an alternative charge, but I am unsure whether it was DD /
C&R or DD / speeding.
The result was a clean sweep, all not guity.

I don't know when the culpable & reckless conduct was introduced, but I think it was between last week and today, presumably when the PF realised the NIP was a problem.

Culpable & reckless is a common law offence in Scotland, which does not need a NIP, and carries a jail sentence.
It was rebutted.
The point was (as was demonstrated, with case law, by the defence) that culpable and reckless is only applicable where there is actual danger or injury, not potential danger.

As to the NIP. The media reports indicate that it was not served. I don't know for sure that that was the case, i.e. that that was agreed. It may have been that the prosecution couldn't prove service.

He won on S172 with SS(4).
His solicitor quoted from a Butterworth's law book (Butterworth's Road Traffic Law?).
It referred to the low burden on the defence.

They needed identification of the driver.
The camera operator had said in a pre-trial statement that he "could not identify the driver."
Basically all the identification evidence came from the video.
Both the camera operator, and two other policeman who had been dispatched with a photo to make driver enquiries (including a verbal S172).
The latter two apparently identified the accused as being the man in the photo when they met him.
The defence had made submissions as to the identification evidence, however, they were never put to the test.

The defence solicitor was inspiring to watch, although, whether the sheriff took notice of it all, I wouldn't like to say.
He didn't seem to take many notes.

In his comments after delivering the verdict (he was only out for about 10 minutes), the sheriff went to great pains to point out that the verdict was a matter of law, and was not a refelection on the prosecution witnessess, whom he found to be credible and reliable.
IMO, he was indicating that he would have found the accused guilty if
he could.

>> Edited by jeffreyarcher on Thursday 9th June 02:30

[jeffreyarcher]

It appears that the NIP wasn't served after all.
www.theherald.co.uk/news/40931-print.shtml

Neil Greig of the AA Trust said:

This episode undermines confidence yet again in the enforcement of traffic law and lends credence to people's views that there are loopholes which can get people off speeding.

This moron (who purports to represent the motoring public) is calling S1 RTOA 1988 a loophole.
It is a long-standing protection against getting a summons out of the blue years later.

Even the 'campaigner' didn't call it a loophole.


>> Edited by jeffreyarcher on Thursday 9th June 11:41