Mr Loophole strikes again
Discussion
May be of interest to serving BIB.
Last Wednesday at our local Mags Court Nick Freeman put in an appearance to defend a female who had been arrested and charged with driving over the limit. She was significantly over at 45mcg in 100ml alcohol in her breath.
All above board?.
Mr Freeman came up with the fact that she had been charged with the offence by a CIVILIAN Detention Officer who had no such power under Police Reform Act 2002.
Case was adjourned after 3 hours and on return CPS offered no evidence and case dismissed.
OK well done Nick but isn't this stretching things too far? She was driving. She was clearly over the limit. Should she escape because of this minor technicallity?
dvd
Last Wednesday at our local Mags Court Nick Freeman put in an appearance to defend a female who had been arrested and charged with driving over the limit. She was significantly over at 45mcg in 100ml alcohol in her breath.
All above board?.
Mr Freeman came up with the fact that she had been charged with the offence by a CIVILIAN Detention Officer who had no such power under Police Reform Act 2002.
Case was adjourned after 3 hours and on return CPS offered no evidence and case dismissed.
OK well done Nick but isn't this stretching things too far? She was driving. She was clearly over the limit. Should she escape because of this minor technicallity?
dvd
Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Friday 2nd March 15:23
dvd said:
OK well done Nick but isn't this stretching things too far? She was driving. She was clearly over the limit. Should she escape because of this minor technicallity?
If we are expected to respect and obey the law, should the law enforcers at least try to do the same?
Due process was not followed, ergo the conviction should be dropped.
No, she shouldn't escape because of a technicality, but unfortunately that's the way our legal system works, and the Police should be raising their game to meet the challenge of people like Nick Freeman.
I actually don't hold anything against the bloke (although I'll be interested to see the outcome of the Police investigation into him) - he's doing his job to the best of his ability, and reaping the rewards of doing so.
If I'm preparing a court file, I always take extra time to cross the "t"s and dot the "i"s because I've got Mr Freeman and his ilk at the back of my mind. The Police in this case should have known full well that civilians can't charge offenders, and I'm amazed that they've allowed the practice to go on.
One other point, a reading of 45 isn't significantly over the limit - the limit is 35 and (for some reason that's never been explained to me, and with which I've never agreed with), the Police only prosecute for breath readings of 40 and above, so this person was 5 microgrammes over the limit.
It should still have been an easy case to prove in court though, and she should have been banned. The only concellation is that Freeman's fees will have been far, far more than any fine she'd have recieved.
I actually don't hold anything against the bloke (although I'll be interested to see the outcome of the Police investigation into him) - he's doing his job to the best of his ability, and reaping the rewards of doing so.
If I'm preparing a court file, I always take extra time to cross the "t"s and dot the "i"s because I've got Mr Freeman and his ilk at the back of my mind. The Police in this case should have known full well that civilians can't charge offenders, and I'm amazed that they've allowed the practice to go on.
One other point, a reading of 45 isn't significantly over the limit - the limit is 35 and (for some reason that's never been explained to me, and with which I've never agreed with), the Police only prosecute for breath readings of 40 and above, so this person was 5 microgrammes over the limit.
It should still have been an easy case to prove in court though, and she should have been banned. The only concellation is that Freeman's fees will have been far, far more than any fine she'd have recieved.
The problem is that there is no comeback from the CPS side. The defence was absolutely correct, the charge could not be made *but* the offence was correctly recorded irrespective of who "charged" her. Surely the charge comes from an officer at the station, not the office who stopped her and initiated the first road-side breath test?
Case thrown out and both police and CPS time wasted by a pathetic detail (in this case). Common sense should dictate that the woman was guilty as charged and should be duly punished. Unfortunately in this instance the law is an ass and got it wrong - the rules are there to protect us though and there are plenty of examples of police powers being abused. We take the rough with the smooth and in theory the world is a better place as a result.
Case thrown out and both police and CPS time wasted by a pathetic detail (in this case). Common sense should dictate that the woman was guilty as charged and should be duly punished. Unfortunately in this instance the law is an ass and got it wrong - the rules are there to protect us though and there are plenty of examples of police powers being abused. We take the rough with the smooth and in theory the world is a better place as a result.
Putting aside the "fairness" element why did the authorities allow the civilian to do what it clearly states in law that a Police Officer must do?
Don't the Police know the law? I would have thought that Custody Officers would know it better than anybody in the service.
It dosn't surprise me though, as there was a recent case where a prisoner died in custody in Poole. The inquest showed that all the custody officers were civilian, except the Segeant who was new to it, and he hadn't been adequately trained. The Inspector resopnsible for the custody suite said he couldn't get Police Officers to do the job and reluctantly had to use in experienced officers.
Don't the Police know the law? I would have thought that Custody Officers would know it better than anybody in the service.
It dosn't surprise me though, as there was a recent case where a prisoner died in custody in Poole. The inquest showed that all the custody officers were civilian, except the Segeant who was new to it, and he hadn't been adequately trained. The Inspector resopnsible for the custody suite said he couldn't get Police Officers to do the job and reluctantly had to use in experienced officers.
Dwight VanDriver said:
OK well done Nick but isn't this stretching things too far? She was driving. She was clearly over the limit. Should she escape because of this minor technicallity?
No, she shouldn't - because "this minor technicality" should never have happened, she should have been charged properly by the desk serg' or whoever is required.
It's galling that she was "let off" but the *facts* are that procedure ("the law"
was not followed. Whilst it irritates me to think she'll be sat smugly at home drink champagne before going out to run over some small children tonight rather than being banned, it is good that at least in some areas magistrates are still making sure that "the law" is being applied as it is written. No amount of interpretation should be allowed if it is solely to allow "slapdash" policing. IMHO.
Edited by tigger1 on Friday 2nd March 15:39
The difficulty is that while very large numbers of otherwise law abiding safe motorists are being prosecuted and harshly penalised for minor infringements of petty rules, there will be a large customer base for the likes of Nick Freeman. This means that even those who probably should be punished will have access to the sorts of skills shown by Mr Freeman in finding such technical loopholes.
If the laws that were enforced with such vigour were supported by enough of the population then most people would take their punishment ‘on the chin’ and Nick would not have a large enough customer base. If the CPS/Police/Government are going to punish citizens for minor rule infringements then they must also expect to be challenged to the same level.
If the laws that were enforced with such vigour were supported by enough of the population then most people would take their punishment ‘on the chin’ and Nick would not have a large enough customer base. If the CPS/Police/Government are going to punish citizens for minor rule infringements then they must also expect to be challenged to the same level.
Edited by black-k1 on Friday 2nd March 15:59
herewego said:
If a drunk driver can’t be charged a CIVILIAN Detention Officer, can anyone else? I mean how does this affect people charged by civilian speed camera teams?
Unless I am mistaken the civilians do not make the charge in the first place, they are merely "trained" to operate type approved hardware which collects evidence. All cases to be persued are handed over to the proper authority.
vonhosen said:
softtop said:
apache said:
Where do you draw the line then? because if you don't do it by the book you might as well throw the book away.
Well if you do it by the book everyone doing 31 in a 30 would be prosecuted.
They wouldnt because the 'detection machines' are only accurate to plus or minus 1 mph...
Due process exists for a reason, and it's abuse, be it deliberate or negligent, should be policed and corrected.
Who will be disciplined for the error?
Who will publish the outcome within the Criminal Justice System and ensure that all involved learn from the results of their poor performance?
Who will be disciplined for the error?
Who will publish the outcome within the Criminal Justice System and ensure that all involved learn from the results of their poor performance?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff