Regina v Abraham (Mansell)
Discussion
This often discussed case which gives definition to police purpose as including driver training, seems to have no references online. Whether on BAILII, the Appeals Court site, nothing.
Does anyone have any ideas why this would be, it's often cited as a reference, but there's no trace of it online?
TIA
Does anyone have any ideas why this would be, it's often cited as a reference, but there's no trace of it online?
TIA
omegac said:
This often discussed case which gives definition to police purpose as including driver training, seems to have no references online. Whether on BAILII, the Appeals Court site, nothing.
Does anyone have any ideas why this would be, it's often cited as a reference, but there's no trace of it online?
TIA
No idea why no trace on line, but is there something in particular you want to know about it?Does anyone have any ideas why this would be, it's often cited as a reference, but there's no trace of it online?
TIA
(Perhaps I can help).
vonhosen said:
No idea why no trace on line, but is there something in particular you want to know about it?
(Perhaps I can help).
Thanks Von, nothing in particular, I saw your detailed post from an earlier question about it (circa 2007), just that as you know, Hendon used to have laminates referencing it in case of getting stopped, the NFCC quote it, and yet there's N/T online, just found it strange.(Perhaps I can help).
omegac said:
vonhosen said:
No idea why no trace on line, but is there something in particular you want to know about it?
(Perhaps I can help).
Thanks Von, nothing in particular, I saw your detailed post from an earlier question about it (circa 2007), just that as you know, Hendon used to have laminates referencing it in case of getting stopped, the NFCC quote it, and yet there's N/T online, just found it strange.(Perhaps I can help).
It doesn't really question that training is a Police purpose in respect of the exemption in relation to speed limits. It just reaffirms it.
It's from 1980.
omegac said:
Yep and Yep...just wondering why there's no online record anywhere.
Thanks anyway b.
What's the citation?Thanks anyway b.
It's mentioned in this thread. Incorrectly referred to as "a stated case" from 1979.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing//topic.asp?h=0...
"Chief Insp Abraham was charged with death by reckless driving & was found guilty at Crown Court."
‘Reckless driving' offences were abolished in 1991. A new and different test applies to 'dangerous driving.'
Edited by agtlaw on Saturday 29th October 20:30
I don't understand why you're surprised about it. The principle is incredibly straightforward and isn't relevant to anyone except the blue light services. So it doesn't come up very often.
Are they allowed by law to break speed limits etc? Yes.
Does training drivers to drive above speed limits etc count within the statutory exception even if there's no emergency? Yes, the statute says exactly that.
When driving above the speed limit etc are blue light drivers subject to the same expected "duty of care" as all other drivers? Yes. They are not magically exempt from the laws relating to recklessness, driving without due care, death by dangerous driving etc.
Are they allowed by law to break speed limits etc? Yes.
Does training drivers to drive above speed limits etc count within the statutory exception even if there's no emergency? Yes, the statute says exactly that.
When driving above the speed limit etc are blue light drivers subject to the same expected "duty of care" as all other drivers? Yes. They are not magically exempt from the laws relating to recklessness, driving without due care, death by dangerous driving etc.
omegac said:
Mojooo said:
Had a look on lexis nexis library and no trace.
Thanks, very strange...no one can seem to find any trace of it Key passages from the judgment below.
[
…]
The appellant was a Chief Inspector of the South Wales Constabulary and a police driving instructor at Bridgend. Indeed, he was the chief driving instructor for the Glamorgan Constabulary driving school at that place and had been in that position for 6½ years. On 3 July 1979 in the course of his duties he was driving a Ford Granada police car.
He had a sergeant at his side in the passenger's seat and another sergeant in the back of the car. Those three officers had earlier in the day officially attended the cremation of a police officer, but that matter had been followed by what is called a ‘staff run’, where the officers, all three of whom were driving instructors on one kind or another, criticised and examined one another's driving, taking it in turn to drive the car for that purpose.
[…]
At any rate, it is clear that the facts with regard to the speed were these. The vehicle was on police duty. It was being driven by driving instructors who were testing one another on what has been called a ‘police exercise’ or a ‘staff run’. In so far as the judge may have meant that it was not being used in an actual chase of bank robbers, or something like that, then of course he was clearly right in what he said – it was not. But we have been shown resolutions by conferences of chief constables of areas where there are driving schools which indicate that to drive cars for the purpose of testing officers along an ordinary road and increasing their driving skills ready for the day when they may have to conduct a chase is driving for police purposes and that accordingly they should drive within the limits of their capabilities but not beyond 90 percent of the maximum speed of the car they are using on those occasions. The Ford Granada has a maximum speed such that with a 10 percent reduction the maximum speed at which it should be driven would be 100 miles an hour. As has been said, the evidence seems to be that the appellant was driving at a maximum of 80 miles an hour.
There is provision contained in section 79 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 which exempts vehicles being used for police purposes from the observance of speed limits where the observance of those provisions would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose for which it is being used on that occasion.
During the trial, we are told, the judge told the jury that the evidence with regard to that was all one way, that the vehicle was being used on such an occasion, and the speed limit did not apply, but in sentencing he said that it was not being used on operational duties.
The speed of this car was of course deliberate. There can be no doubt about that. But in so far as that meant a deliberate exceeding of a speed limit that would be a wrong way of looking at this case. It means that, when compared with a similar accident taking place with an ordinary civilian driver, the speed is simply a speed unsuitable for the road in the particular circumstances of the case. The occurrence would therefore be comparable with any ordinary driver driving within the speed limit, but at a speed which was simply not proper in the particular circumstances of the road and the possible traffic upon it at the time.
[…]
EW109 said:
It is reported, albeit in a niche series of law reports (see [1980] RTR 471).
During the trial, we are told, the judge told the jury that the evidence with regard to that was all one way, that the vehicle was being used on such an occasion, and the speed limit did not apply, but in sentencing he said that it was not being used on operational duties.
That's perfect thanks, is there a link to that law report, or is it a subscription service? During the trial, we are told, the judge told the jury that the evidence with regard to that was all one way, that the vehicle was being used on such an occasion, and the speed limit did not apply, but in sentencing he said that it was not being used on operational duties.
omegac said:
EW109 said:
It is reported, albeit in a niche series of law reports (see [1980] RTR 471).
During the trial, we are told, the judge told the jury that the evidence with regard to that was all one way, that the vehicle was being used on such an occasion, and the speed limit did not apply, but in sentencing he said that it was not being used on operational duties.
That's perfect thanks, is there a link to that law report, or is it a subscription service? During the trial, we are told, the judge told the jury that the evidence with regard to that was all one way, that the vehicle was being used on such an occasion, and the speed limit did not apply, but in sentencing he said that it was not being used on operational duties.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff