Officer accused of speeding cleared of 16 charges
Discussion
Police officer accused of speeding to beat traffic cleared of 16 charges
https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/norfolk-constab...
Discuss !
https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/norfolk-constab...
Discuss !
surely it didn't matter if the use was suitable or unsuitable, just that he was or was not police business
It said he was going to an appointment about his son, so not really police business, but it also said it was while he was on duty, so presumably the faster he was there and back the faster he could be back to catching terrorists and people who don't get a receipt from a supermarket so maybe it was police business.
It said he was going to an appointment about his son, so not really police business, but it also said it was while he was on duty, so presumably the faster he was there and back the faster he could be back to catching terrorists and people who don't get a receipt from a supermarket so maybe it was police business.
ging84 said:
surely it didn't matter if the use was suitable or unsuitable, just that he was or was not police business
It said he was going to an appointment about his son, so not really police business, but it also said it was while he was on duty, so presumably the faster he was there and back the faster he could be back to catching terrorists and people who don't get a receipt from a supermarket so maybe it was police business.
Suitable (correct) or unsuitable (incorrect) use of the (Police business) exemption.It said he was going to an appointment about his son, so not really police business, but it also said it was while he was on duty, so presumably the faster he was there and back the faster he could be back to catching terrorists and people who don't get a receipt from a supermarket so maybe it was police business.
(Appropriate) Training is Police business.
If it was for training, what you do after you've completed the training run isn't what determines whether it was a correct or incorrect use of the exemption for training purposes, it's the run itself that determines it if it's for a legitimate training purpose.
Norfolk/Suffolk appear to have less well defined guidance than my old force.
CoolHands said:
Why did they prosecute him though? Someone’s his nick must have it in for him, surely. 16 charges!
Does seem a little crazy. Surely it could have been quickly and simply dealt with at an internal level ? The CPS were obviously provided with enough to follow it through but what a waste of time and money.vonhosen said:
Suitable (correct) or unsuitable (incorrect) use of the (Police business) exemption.
(Appropriate) Training is Police business.
If it was for training, what you do after you've completed the training run isn't what determines whether it was a correct or incorrect use of the exemption for training purposes, it's the run itself that determines it if it's for a legitimate training purpose.
Norfolk/Suffolk appear to have less well defined guidance than my old force.
So basically he was claiming he was killing 2 birds with 1 stone by treating a trip to an appointment as a training run, his superiors say no he was rushing to an appointment, but could not prove it because they don't have robust enough procedures in place to stop someone claiming any trip was a training run. Or alternatively they're policies are flexible enough to allow officers to get a bit of practice in when the opportunity presents its self but not clear enough that the superiors understood that this was allowable.(Appropriate) Training is Police business.
If it was for training, what you do after you've completed the training run isn't what determines whether it was a correct or incorrect use of the exemption for training purposes, it's the run itself that determines it if it's for a legitimate training purpose.
Norfolk/Suffolk appear to have less well defined guidance than my old force.
Original discussion was here, if anyone's interested -
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Sheepshanks said:
This is simply down to typical Mags believing absolutely anything police officers say to them.
Or simply down to an ambiguous policy that gives ample scope to claim exemptions for training. Or the CPS sticking things in court that should never be there because it’s a police officer as the accused.
It's kind of Deja vu.
Way back when, Police forces had policies that said only trained drivers could use their exemptions. They also had guidance as to when they could use them or how fast they could drive, along with grading of calls etc.
The problem is, none of that was in the legislation. They introduced an amendment, that only trained drivers could use a speeding exemptions, however for when it can be used nothing has changed. It just says if the police purpose would be hindered, by keeping to the speed limit, then there is no speed limit.
There is no proportionality or necessity test. The case law that, being late for court or everyone was waiting for the keys to get into a house etc. has not been changed. The force can say, we don't want you use the exemption, that doesn't remove the exemption. The officer can still face discipline.
As it stands, it's not hard to justify it, so long as there was a policing purpose. The guy who got done for familiarisation in the 159mph Vectra, was not convicted of speeding, he was convicted of dangerous driving IIRC (And given an absolute discharge). The Fire brigade used to (and may still I don't know) go almost everywhere with blue lights, because getting a job finished meant that, if something else came up, they would be free to deal with it quicker.
Way back when, Police forces had policies that said only trained drivers could use their exemptions. They also had guidance as to when they could use them or how fast they could drive, along with grading of calls etc.
The problem is, none of that was in the legislation. They introduced an amendment, that only trained drivers could use a speeding exemptions, however for when it can be used nothing has changed. It just says if the police purpose would be hindered, by keeping to the speed limit, then there is no speed limit.
There is no proportionality or necessity test. The case law that, being late for court or everyone was waiting for the keys to get into a house etc. has not been changed. The force can say, we don't want you use the exemption, that doesn't remove the exemption. The officer can still face discipline.
As it stands, it's not hard to justify it, so long as there was a policing purpose. The guy who got done for familiarisation in the 159mph Vectra, was not convicted of speeding, he was convicted of dangerous driving IIRC (And given an absolute discharge). The Fire brigade used to (and may still I don't know) go almost everywhere with blue lights, because getting a job finished meant that, if something else came up, they would be free to deal with it quicker.
Edited by Graveworm on Tuesday 11th February 00:29
MuscleSedan said:
Police officer accused of speeding to beat traffic cleared of 16 charges
https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/norfolk-constab...
Discuss !
Nothing unusual here. A police officer being taken to court despite there being a lack of evidence. What's new?https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/norfolk-constab...
Discuss !
I know of a number of officers who were charged with a serious, max life-imprisonment, offence and at the pre-trial hearing the CPS was told by the judge that the case should be pulled as there was no chance of conviction. He was proved right. It went right up to crown court and the trial judge kicked it out before any evidence was heard. I saw the disclosure, and it wasn't even strong enough to be called flimsy. Had it not been police officers, the case would not have even been charged.
The very senior officer in charge of the case, which went on for years, and which cost £millions, was promoted for their efforts.
And there were others, one which led to the suicide of a hard-working officer.
The police should be treated before the law in exactly the same way as any other citizen. If there's not enough evidence, then either find more evidence - the problem being that it might not be there - or stop investigating.
vonhosen said:
It appears
His employer didn't think it was a suitable use.
The CPS didn't think it was a suitable use.
The court didn't think the prosecution could prove beyond reasonable doubt it was an unsuitable use.
Usual dodgy magistrates decision like the PC Mark Milton one where he got acquitted of dangerous driving because the mag thought he was the creme de la creme.... . His employer didn't think it was a suitable use.
The CPS didn't think it was a suitable use.
The court didn't think the prosecution could prove beyond reasonable doubt it was an unsuitable use.
Use of a police vehicle for personal purposes is unacceptable. It is public money. That should be a disciplinary offence.
But more worryingly, the use of blues and twos without authority to use them, speeding and driving on the wrong side of the road just to make a personal appointment cannot be condoned and should be punished. Anything else undermines the trust the public would like to have in the police.
NS400R said:
Usual dodgy magistrates decision like the PC Mark Milton one where he got acquitted of dangerous driving because the mag thought he was the creme de la creme...
Wasn’t that a DJ rather than mags?NS400R said:
Use of a police vehicle for personal purposes is unacceptable. It is public money. That should be a disciplinary offence.
But more worryingly, the use of blues and twos without authority to use them, speeding and driving on the wrong side of the road just to make a personal appointment cannot be condoned and should be punished. Anything else undermines the trust the public would like to have in the police.
Agreed. But more worryingly, the use of blues and twos without authority to use them, speeding and driving on the wrong side of the road just to make a personal appointment cannot be condoned and should be punished. Anything else undermines the trust the public would like to have in the police.
If that can be proven...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff