Judges overturn speeder acquittal
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4488668.stm
I find it absolutely mind-boggling that they can overturn the not-guilty verdict based on looking at seven seconds of video footage and then making assumptions about the conditions and how many other road users were about to justify it.
BBC said:
Appeal judges have overturned the acquittal of a businessman who was caught driving at 156mph with a mobile phone at his ear.
The Crown had appealed a sheriff's decision on Ronald Klos, who was filmed in his BMW M3 CSL on the A92 in Fife.
The sheriff ruled the Crown had not served a notice of prosecution on Klos and could not bring another charge.
Judges have directed the sheriff to find Klos, 37, guilty of culpable and reckless conduct.
Klos, of Mount Frost Drive, Markinch, in Fife, was clocked on 2 May last year at what was said to have been the highest speed recorded on roadside cameras in the county.
Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court was shown a video which revealed that the driver appeared to be holding a mobile phone.
The amateur racing driver and founder of a salvage firm was originally charged with offences including dangerous driving, using a handheld mobile while driving and failing to give police information as to the identity of the driver.
He denied the charges and was found not guilty by Sheriff Paul Arthurson.
The accused had denied that he was the driver of the car but the sheriff rejected that.
However, Sheriff Arthurson accepted his testimony that he had not received the required papers for the prosecution.
The Crown had asked the sheriff to find him guilty of an alternative charge of culpable and reckless conduct but it was ruled that there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty of that offence.
The three judges at the Justiciary Appeal Court in Edinburgh have now sent the case back to the sheriff with a direction that he find Klos guilty of culpable and reckless conduct and that he be sentenced there.
Temporary judge Gordon Nicholson QC said: "In our opinion there are several features which taken together demonstrate he was indeed guilty of culpable and reckless conduct.
"Firstly, and most importantly, there is the speed at which he was driving. We cannot say whether 156 miles per hour is the highest speed ever recorded on a Scottish road, but we suspect that it must be among the highest.
"It was more than double the speed permitted on the road in question and, although the video recording made by the police lasted for only seven seconds, it cannot, we think, be assumed that he maintained this speed only for that period of time."
The judge said it was fair to assume there would have been a lot of traffic around at the time of the offence.
Mr Nicholson said: "In the face of foreseeable hazards such as these we do not see how to drive at 156mph can be described as anything other than culpable and reckless."
Sheriff Arthurson had acquitted Klos on the mobile phone charge because, while there was evidence that he was holding it to his ear, there was no evidence that he had been using it.
Mr Nicholson, who heard the appeal with lords Johnston and Mackay, said: "We have to say that, in our view, it defies common sense to suppose that he was doing no more than just holding the telephone and not actually using it."
The judge stated: "In our opinion the sheriff ought to have found him guilty of the common law offence of culpable and reckless conduct.
"We have, without difficulty, come to the conclusion that the sheriff was in error in giving too much attention to the absence of evidence as to actual danger and by not giving sufficient attention to the inherent quality of what he was doing at the time and to the foreseeable consequences of such actings."
Klos was not in court to hear the judgement.
I find it absolutely mind-boggling that they can overturn the not-guilty verdict based on looking at seven seconds of video footage and then making assumptions about the conditions and how many other road users were about to justify it.
If there's a video of the guy clearly holding a phone to his ear (hence at best 1 hand on the wheel), and evidence clearly shows him doing 150+, then I can see exactly how they'd do that. the bloke must be a muppet! Whenever I get near the ton I pay 100% attention to the road and both hands are on the wheel!
Note the two "clearly"s though...
Note the two "clearly"s though...
The guy is fairly obviously a loon, but...
...is spot on. Well, we saw someone a bit like the defendant near the scene of the crime, so we'll assume it was him wouldn't go down too well in a murder trial.
One assumes his brief will have a field day with this.
judas said:
I find it absolutely mind-boggling that they can overturn the not-guilty verdict based on looking at seven seconds of video footage and then making assumptions about the conditions and how many other road users were about to justify it.
...is spot on. Well, we saw someone a bit like the defendant near the scene of the crime, so we'll assume it was him wouldn't go down too well in a murder trial.
One assumes his brief will have a field day with this.
k ups
havoc said:
And to assume you can do 156mph while talking on your mobile and not suffer any consequences...
But that's a whole other argument. The problem I see here is that he was originally acquitted on a technicality so the higher judges have made a series of assumptions so they can find him guilty of another charge. And that, dear boy, is just not cricket!
judas said:
And to assume you can do 156mph while talking on your mobile and not suffer any consequences...
But that's a whole other argument. The problem I see here is that he was originally acquitted on a technicality so the higher judges have made a series of assumptions so they can find him guilty of another charge. And that, dear boy, is just not cricket!
You may have a point.
To be honest, we don't know enough about this...the way it's written doesn't sound exactly fair, but what has the writer omitted?
One last thing - we all talk about "justice" and "fairness" when we're done for arguably sensible speeds in clear conditions by a camera. Applying the same argument here, it's a fair result for the pratt. But it would be nice if it worked the other way too!
havoc said:
And to assume you can do 156mph while talking on your mobile and not suffer any consequences...
But that's a whole other argument. The problem I see here is that he was originally acquitted on a technicality so the higher judges have made a series of assumptions so they can find him guilty of another charge. And that, dear boy, is just not cricket!
You may have a point.
To be honest, we don't know enough about this...the way it's written doesn't sound exactly fair, but what has the writer omitted?
One last thing - we all talk about "justice" and "fairness" when we're done for arguably sensible speeds in clear conditions by a camera. Applying the same argument here, it's a fair result for the pratt. But it would be nice if it worked the other way too!
Why a pratt? 156 in a CSL is a simple speed to do - the car is nice n stable ffs.
His only crime was getting caught
- Pratt for holding the phone at serious speed;
- Pratt for doing 156 on a public road;
- Pratt for owning a BM?!?
...take your pick!
Sorry, but at 156mph even a CSL is going to take a whole county to stop in, and any sudden steering input and he'll be geography...along with anyone he hits. 1.5t missile won't be pleasant. As for stability...perhaps, but that's not taking anyone else into account. How many lanes did this road have? If 2 or less then he's really pushing it - potential ton-plus closing speed on artics?!?
- Pratt for doing 156 on a public road;
- Pratt for owning a BM?!?
...take your pick!
Sorry, but at 156mph even a CSL is going to take a whole county to stop in, and any sudden steering input and he'll be geography...along with anyone he hits. 1.5t missile won't be pleasant. As for stability...perhaps, but that's not taking anyone else into account. How many lanes did this road have? If 2 or less then he's really pushing it - potential ton-plus closing speed on artics?!?
Sorry, but I have no sympathy for the man. Its not as though he was a tad over the limit because:-
a) his car was so quiet that he didn't realise his speed
b) the cruise control was broken
c) he desparately needed to void his lower intestinal tract
d) any other similar excuse.
Without taking the various court descisions in to play at the moment..... He was over twice the national limit, with one hand on the steering wheel, and we are not talking about 3 a.m. on a deserted motorway, on a dry summer morning. Whether he was making a call or not is perhaps debatable, but the same reasoning has applied to many others who held a phone to their ear - they got booked and paid/argued as they saw fit.
This man used various methods to get off the offence. To an extent, fair play to him, no different to what others may try/do. He succeeded by a) incompetent fiscal process and b) sympathetic Sheriff. Again, to be fair to the Sheriff, he refuted the drivers claim that it was someone else who was driving but allowed the case to fold due to a). The Fiscal then appealed the case and the judgement as now reported was found by the appeal judges, ordering the original Sheriff to find guilty on an offence which was attempted to be introduced by the Fiscal but rejected by the original Sheriff.
Bottom line? The driver knew well and good that he was doing wrong, at the wrong place and at the wrong time. He tried the system, partially succeeded, but ultimately, is going to pay the price.
a) his car was so quiet that he didn't realise his speed
b) the cruise control was broken
c) he desparately needed to void his lower intestinal tract
d) any other similar excuse.
Without taking the various court descisions in to play at the moment..... He was over twice the national limit, with one hand on the steering wheel, and we are not talking about 3 a.m. on a deserted motorway, on a dry summer morning. Whether he was making a call or not is perhaps debatable, but the same reasoning has applied to many others who held a phone to their ear - they got booked and paid/argued as they saw fit.
This man used various methods to get off the offence. To an extent, fair play to him, no different to what others may try/do. He succeeded by a) incompetent fiscal process and b) sympathetic Sheriff. Again, to be fair to the Sheriff, he refuted the drivers claim that it was someone else who was driving but allowed the case to fold due to a). The Fiscal then appealed the case and the judgement as now reported was found by the appeal judges, ordering the original Sheriff to find guilty on an offence which was attempted to be introduced by the Fiscal but rejected by the original Sheriff.
Bottom line? The driver knew well and good that he was doing wrong, at the wrong place and at the wrong time. He tried the system, partially succeeded, but ultimately, is going to pay the price.
guizer said:
Sorry, but I have no sympathy for the man.
I think if anyone had died or been injured, then the book
should have been thrown at him.
While there was *considerable* potential for trouble, AFAIK no
one died and no one got injured.
One might almost say life was saved because he got to his
destination a bit faster than usual.
I think a small fine would have been appropriate punishment,
for driving a bit too fast and being caught on a hand held mobile.
guizer said:
Sorry, but I have no sympathy for the man. Its not as though he was a tad over the limit because:-
a) his car was so quiet that he didn't realise his speed
b) the cruise control was broken
c) he desparately needed to void his lower intestinal tract
d) any other similar excuse.
Without taking the various court descisions in to play at the moment..... He was over twice the national limit, with one hand on the steering wheel, and we are not talking about 3 a.m. on a deserted motorway, on a dry summer morning. Whether he was making a call or not is perhaps debatable, but the same reasoning has applied to many others who held a phone to their ear - they got booked and paid/argued as they saw fit.
This man used various methods to get off the offence. To an extent, fair play to him, no different to what others may try/do. He succeeded by a) incompetent fiscal process and b) sympathetic Sheriff. Again, to be fair to the Sheriff, he refuted the drivers claim that it was someone else who was driving but allowed the case to fold due to a). The Fiscal then appealed the case and the judgement as now reported was found by the appeal judges, ordering the original Sheriff to find guilty on an offence which was attempted to be introduced by the Fiscal but rejected by the original Sheriff.
Bottom line? The driver knew well and good that he was doing wrong, at the wrong place and at the wrong time. He tried the system, partially succeeded, but ultimately, is going to pay the price.
You should talk bollox for a living you would make a fortune.
dcb said:
Sorry, but I have no sympathy for the man.
I think if anyone had died or been injured, then the book
should have been thrown at him.
While there was *considerable* potential for trouble, AFAIK no
one died and no one got injured.
One might almost say life was saved because he got to his
destination a bit faster than usual.
I think a small fine would have been appropriate punishment,
for driving a bit too fast and being caught on a hand held mobile.
Book throwing = agreed.
Injury? = none.
Life saving by going quicker? = utter bo**ocks.
Small fine for a bit too fast? = beyond belief!! We are not talking a momentary concentration lapse of fortyodd miles an hour in a 30, but a deliberate act of driving over 80 mph over the maximum speed limit!! I hope your tongue was firmly in your cheek when typing your comment!!
guizer said:
Sorry, but I have no sympathy for the man.
I think if anyone had died or been injured, then the book
should have been thrown at him.
While there was *considerable* potential for trouble, AFAIK no
one died and no one got injured.
One might almost say life was saved because he got to his
destination a bit faster than usual.
I think a small fine would have been appropriate punishment,
for driving a bit too fast and being caught on a hand held mobile.
Book throwing = agreed.
Injury? = none.
Life saving by going quicker? = utter bo**ocks.
Small fine for a bit too fast? = beyond belief!! We are not talking a momentary concentration lapse of fortyodd miles an hour in a 30, but a deliberate act of driving over 80 mph over the maximum speed limit!! I hope your tongue was firmly in your cheek when typing your comment!!
Yet more it seems to flow freely
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff