south yorks police takes south yorks police to court
Discussion
First post. 
or trying to set an example?Idris Francis took another force to task in similar circumstances a while ago.
The objectionable part of this is that, under S172, if it is not possible to identify the driver, the vehicle owner is protected from prosecution.
CC Hughes knows, or ought to know, of this defence. There is no case to answer and his admission of "guilt" is effectively perverting the course of justice.
Hughes is one of two things. Either he is ignorant of the law, or he is a confidence trickster, trying to deceive the public into believing there is no defence under S172.
Either way, this is bad policing.
This story is front page headlines, with picture of Hughes and a Gatso, in South Yorkshire's biggest local paper.
This, and the linked story, shows Hughes has set out to give this issue maximum publicity.
Here's hoping it comes back to bite his bum....
The objectionable part of this is that, under S172, if it is not possible to identify the driver, the vehicle owner is protected from prosecution.
CC Hughes knows, or ought to know, of this defence. There is no case to answer and his admission of "guilt" is effectively perverting the course of justice.
Hughes is one of two things. Either he is ignorant of the law, or he is a confidence trickster, trying to deceive the public into believing there is no defence under S172.
Either way, this is bad policing.
This story is front page headlines, with picture of Hughes and a Gatso, in South Yorkshire's biggest local paper.
This, and the linked story, shows Hughes has set out to give this issue maximum publicity.
Here's hoping it comes back to bite his bum....
Edited by mybrainhurts on Thursday 28th December 18:35
Chief Constable said:
In the enthusiasm to follow up these inquiries, it would appear that our own internal rules about log books have not been complied with
He was on Newsnight about two weeks ago, and took a good grilling from Paxman over this! How difficult can it be to fill out an entry in a bloody log book!
.
mybrainhurts said:
The objectionable part of this is that, under S172, if it is not possible to identify the driver, the vehicle owner is protected from prosecution.
CC Hughes knows, or ought to know, of this defence. There is no case to answer and his admission of "guilt" is effectively perverting the course of justice.
Hughes is one of two things. Either he is ignorant of the law, or he is a confidence trickster, trying to deceive the public into believing there is no defence under S172.
It seems to be the latter: CC Hughes knows, or ought to know, of this defence. There is no case to answer and his admission of "guilt" is effectively perverting the course of justice.
Hughes is one of two things. Either he is ignorant of the law, or he is a confidence trickster, trying to deceive the public into believing there is no defence under S172.
Sheffield Today said:
Mike Trees, from the force's Road Policing Unit, said it wasn't just police forces who were prosecuted in cases where a driver cannot be identified.
As for the whole bizarre debacle, what a childish bunch of idiots who should really be put over someones knee and given a good smack, told grow up and sent to their room.mybrainhurts said:
The objectionable part of this is that, under S172, if it is not possible to identify the driver, the vehicle owner is protected from prosecution.
S172 RTA 1998 was amended in 1991 and additional clauses added specifically around corporate bodies. S172(4) only applies to a corporate if it can be shown that not keeping a log is reasonable. The fact that they do keep a log demostrates that it is reasonable and therefore the protection in S172(4) don't apply. The fact that the log book system failed doesn't excuse the corporation of failing to provide the details.
bluepolarbear said:
S172 RTA 1998 was amended in 1991 and additional clauses added specifically around corporate bodies. S172(4) only applies to a corporate if it can be shown that not keeping a log is reasonable. The fact that they do keep a log demostrates that it is reasonable and therefore the protection in S172(4) don't apply. The fact that the log book system failed doesn't excuse the corporation of failing to provide the details.
How nice. And in the meantime, who's paying for this fine? I'm betting the money's not coming from Hughes's pocket. Nor is he personally funding the defense lawyers, the prosecution lawyers, the court costs, yadda-yadda-yadda.
So what we have here, at great taxpayer expense, is an utterly futile show. And what is the net effect to the cop who was done for speeding? Nothing.
One law for them, another for us, we just have to pay for all of it.
chrispy porker said:
I don't think there were costs. Guilty plea by letter. All it means is one hand of Govt gives £500 to the other, Net cost to taxpayer, nil.
But I bet the Sh!t is flying about log books in the force now!!
But I bet the Sh!t is flying about log books in the force now!!
Sad, as all this is a bit pointless. Where is the benefit to anyone of all this shenanigans? Nil, aside from keeping meticuous log books but I doubt that as all systems made by humans are eventually snafud by human error from the humans using the systems anyway.
Pointless bureaucracy to support a failing policy. Ditch the cameras. Ditch the justice denial in self-incrimination. Appoint more trained trafpol and get them out sorting DANGEROUS road user behaviour. That's how to improve road safety.
chrispy porker said:
Net cost to taxpayer, nil.
I take it then, that you are saying that for 500 quid to travel from the police force to the treasury and presumably eventually BACK to the police force costs absolutely NOTHING?
Gosh, I bet the private sector would love to be that efficient. I'm willing to bet a fiver that shuffling this whole song and dance around would have cost the taxpayer more than the spurious 500 quid fine.
And ANYWAY, how then, does that 500 quid amount to a punishment? If a company pays a 500 quid fine, that's 500 off the bottom line forever; if I pay a 500 quid fine that's 500 quid less money for me ... forever.
What, exactly, is the "cost" to CC Hughes?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff