Is this really in the public interest? Law being an ass!
Discussion
Executive summary.
Two volunteer trained paramedics supported by voluntary contributions attend a road traffic collision ahead of the NHS ambulance.
They identify themselves to police officers attending who allow them to treat the casualties.
When NHS ambulance arrives later the volunteers hand over to NHS personnel.
Police promptly then charge them for illegal use of a vehicle fitted with blue lights and two tone warning device.
Case goes to court, District Judge finds that their vehicle was being used for ambulance purposes and acquits.
Director of Public Prosecution appealed and yesterday the High Court ruled "with regret" that the appeal must be allowed. Their words not mine.
Daily Telegraph report
So, per the title, was the original prosecution, and in particular the appeal in the public interest.
My opinion that generally it was not in the public interest. The only possible saving grace might be, at a stretch, that it was to get a ruling in court to define "used for ambulance purposes." Yet their "large vehicles can carry medical equipment, including defibrillators, oxygen and neck braces, as well as dressings and some drugs." and "I found Hatzola to be a responsible, dedicated and public-spirited organisation with well-trained and motivated operatives, of whom the defendants were two,”
So shame on you DPP.
Two volunteer trained paramedics supported by voluntary contributions attend a road traffic collision ahead of the NHS ambulance.
They identify themselves to police officers attending who allow them to treat the casualties.
When NHS ambulance arrives later the volunteers hand over to NHS personnel.
Police promptly then charge them for illegal use of a vehicle fitted with blue lights and two tone warning device.
Case goes to court, District Judge finds that their vehicle was being used for ambulance purposes and acquits.
Director of Public Prosecution appealed and yesterday the High Court ruled "with regret" that the appeal must be allowed. Their words not mine.
Daily Telegraph report
So, per the title, was the original prosecution, and in particular the appeal in the public interest.
My opinion that generally it was not in the public interest. The only possible saving grace might be, at a stretch, that it was to get a ruling in court to define "used for ambulance purposes." Yet their "large vehicles can carry medical equipment, including defibrillators, oxygen and neck braces, as well as dressings and some drugs." and "I found Hatzola to be a responsible, dedicated and public-spirited organisation with well-trained and motivated operatives, of whom the defendants were two,”
So shame on you DPP.
Was the car insured for blue light use? if so I can see what the risk is and why take the case to court.
I have heard of police/camera partnerships trying trying to bring speeding cases against NHS Blood vehicles on the basis they feel that are not excempt from speed limits. So far I think CPS have stopped all action.
devon freewheelers have a private invidiual with a blue light kitted car who has no blue light qualfications but he brags about doing blue light runs for them and has blue lights and sirens on all his cars.
see sierra 3 under vehicles http://bloodbikes.org/vehicles
had an ex police v70 but now had a v50 he runs a company called safe response that sells emergency kit to mostly volunters.
I have heard of police/camera partnerships trying trying to bring speeding cases against NHS Blood vehicles on the basis they feel that are not excempt from speed limits. So far I think CPS have stopped all action.
devon freewheelers have a private invidiual with a blue light kitted car who has no blue light qualfications but he brags about doing blue light runs for them and has blue lights and sirens on all his cars.
see sierra 3 under vehicles http://bloodbikes.org/vehicles
had an ex police v70 but now had a v50 he runs a company called safe response that sells emergency kit to mostly volunters.
Edited by jbsportstech on Thursday 13th March 10:28
greygoose said:
I read that today and it is an unusual situation, I suppose the justification for prosecution would be that all sorts could stick some first aid stuff in their car and race about with blue lights and sirens?
This is the way I understood it also.I assume there is some process to be followed for a vehicle/driver to be permitted to use blues and twos, why has this organistion not applied through this route?
I can definitely see how it would be viewed as harsh but there has to be some sort of control over emergency lights and sirens otherwise I'd chuck some plasters in the back of my car and cut my commute time in half
Edit: In answer to the title question, yes I do think this is in the public interest but in the same breath I believe any sentence handed down should be purely token and contingent on the organisation discontinuing use of the blues and twos until they have followed the correct process to premit them to do so.
Edited by MacW on Thursday 13th March 10:33
It's not Proportionate or Ethical is it (PLANE mnemonic)? That could be why it appears wrong headed.
Couldn't they have been dealt with by 'words of advice' or 'management action'? 'You scratch my back, I stamp on yours'?
They're part of a scheme from the States? Seems a shame to stamp on what appears to be something good from the US coming here rather than some of the questionable stuff.
I only discovered this lastnight, looking to check the Sir Norman Fry statements to the press, it seems slightly applicable from several angles:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnVbSNixhdE
This case and ruling is as thick as a puddle.
Couldn't they have been dealt with by 'words of advice' or 'management action'? 'You scratch my back, I stamp on yours'?
They're part of a scheme from the States? Seems a shame to stamp on what appears to be something good from the US coming here rather than some of the questionable stuff.
I only discovered this lastnight, looking to check the Sir Norman Fry statements to the press, it seems slightly applicable from several angles:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnVbSNixhdE
This case and ruling is as thick as a puddle.
jbsportstech said:
I have heard of police/camera partnerships trying trying to bring speeding cases against NHS Blood vehicles on the basis they feel that are not excempt from speed limits. So far I think CPS have stopped all action.
There's been a fair bit recently in RoSPA's Care on the Road newspaper about Bloodrunners and RoSPA groups training them.Edited by carinaman on Thursday 13th March 10:35
carinaman said:
There's been a fair bit recently in RoSPA's Care on the Road newspaper about Bloodrunners and RoSPA groups training them.
There seems to be a formal process with the bike side. All groups get their riders iam pass or rospa silver+.Then a check ride and training on the siren use by in our groups case police motorcyclists.
I know the safe response guy had iam pass but has not had formal blue light. He has his own blue light insurance as he claims to offer medical team transport through his compnay as well.
Allowing their continued use would set a dangerous precedent. What would be in place to ensure all drivers were properly trained and insured, for example. This particular organisation may be well run and sound, but that wouldn't guarantee others were. What about use of exemptions or standards of vehicles allowed to be used?
Administering such a system would require a new regulatory framework and control to dictate acceptable standards, which would be expensive and difficult to police.
Yes, it's a shame, but there are good reasons for the rules and the appeal was necessary and in the public interest to avoid others being put in a position of uncertainty with regards to whether or not they were committing an offence.
Administering such a system would require a new regulatory framework and control to dictate acceptable standards, which would be expensive and difficult to police.
Yes, it's a shame, but there are good reasons for the rules and the appeal was necessary and in the public interest to avoid others being put in a position of uncertainty with regards to whether or not they were committing an offence.
http://www.severnfreewheelers.org.uk/hospitals/our...
Blue lights are used for grade 1 calls, but no speed exemptions. Only police or Rospa silver golds allowed.
I'm sure the detail of the case revolves around the specifics of whether the vehicle was classed as being used for ambulance purposes. Bizarre use of our tax revenue.
Blue lights are used for grade 1 calls, but no speed exemptions. Only police or Rospa silver golds allowed.
I'm sure the detail of the case revolves around the specifics of whether the vehicle was classed as being used for ambulance purposes. Bizarre use of our tax revenue.
Discretion?
'Thanks for helping us out here and looking out for the members of the public, but are you aware that you've committed an offence?'
'We're going to have to organise a formal meeting with your organisation to resolve this matter properly. You've committed an offence and therefore if you use those lights and sirens again you'll be breaking the law again.'
Why do we have to set the Sat Nav to Precendent?
It could have been dealt with differently and spun in the press for public information purposes:
'Good Samaritans helped in road accident but didn't realise they were committing offence. They could have been prosecuted for X.Y,Z but in light of their actions dealing with the casualities a warning and removal of the blue lights and sirens from their vehicles was deemed sufficient.'
With photos of the two criminal heroes and their offending vehicle.
Such press coverage would be a warning to others and of course the article could have listed the nitty gritty about what offences had been committed with references to the relevant legislation.
Ignorance is no excuse in the eye of the law?
But isn't there also something about not taking advantage of others by knowing more about the rules and regulations than they do?
'Thanks for helping us out here and looking out for the members of the public, but are you aware that you've committed an offence?'
'We're going to have to organise a formal meeting with your organisation to resolve this matter properly. You've committed an offence and therefore if you use those lights and sirens again you'll be breaking the law again.'
Why do we have to set the Sat Nav to Precendent?
It could have been dealt with differently and spun in the press for public information purposes:
'Good Samaritans helped in road accident but didn't realise they were committing offence. They could have been prosecuted for X.Y,Z but in light of their actions dealing with the casualities a warning and removal of the blue lights and sirens from their vehicles was deemed sufficient.'
With photos of the two criminal heroes and their offending vehicle.
Such press coverage would be a warning to others and of course the article could have listed the nitty gritty about what offences had been committed with references to the relevant legislation.
Ignorance is no excuse in the eye of the law?
But isn't there also something about not taking advantage of others by knowing more about the rules and regulations than they do?
Edited by carinaman on Thursday 13th March 11:01
Carinaman, a couple of questions for you.
Firstly, what do you do for a living? The reason I ask is that you continually post, on pretty much every police related topic, about what should have been done, what shouldn't have been done, why wasn't this done, did they consider this etc. etc. whilst repeatedly referring to PLAN, NDMM, professional standards guidelines etc. It has made me wonder what you do and, why, as you seem to have all the answers to every policing related topic, you choose to deprive the public of your knowledge and abilities by not actually doing the job.
The other question is - do you spend as much time proffering your opinions and advice to other professions or is just the Police who you feel will benefit from it?
I hope that you will answer these two questions without your usual recourse to random YouTube links and meandering irrelevancies.
Cat
Firstly, what do you do for a living? The reason I ask is that you continually post, on pretty much every police related topic, about what should have been done, what shouldn't have been done, why wasn't this done, did they consider this etc. etc. whilst repeatedly referring to PLAN, NDMM, professional standards guidelines etc. It has made me wonder what you do and, why, as you seem to have all the answers to every policing related topic, you choose to deprive the public of your knowledge and abilities by not actually doing the job.
The other question is - do you spend as much time proffering your opinions and advice to other professions or is just the Police who you feel will benefit from it?
I hope that you will answer these two questions without your usual recourse to random YouTube links and meandering irrelevancies.
Cat
But prosecuting an assistant chief constable for causing a crash by running a red light is not in the public interest, go figure.
http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/latest-...
http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/latest-...
uknick said:
But prosecuting an assistant chief constable for causing a crash by running a red light is not in the public interest, go figure.
http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/latest-...
He was put on a DIS like anyone else would have in the circumstances for an S.3. http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/latest-...
You need to know what you're reading about before you make unfounded implications.
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 13th March 13:44
[quote=Cat]Carinaman, a couple of questions for you.
Firstly, what do you do for a living? The reason I ask is that you continually post, on pretty much every police related topic, about what should have been done, what shouldn't have been done, why wasn't this done, did they consider this etc. etc. whilst repeatedly referring to PLAN, NDMM, professional standards guidelines etc. It has made me wonder what you do and, why, as you seem to have all the answers to every policing related topic, you choose to deprive the public of your knowledge and abilities by not actually doing the job.
The other question is - do you spend as much time proffering your opinions and advice to other professions or is just the Police who you feel will benefit from it?
I hope that you will answer these two questions without your usual recourse to random YouTube links and meandering irrelevancies.
quote
It's a forum. Where people post opinions. I don't know if you two have some sort of keyboard "history" but with regard to his comment above, please stop criticising the guy for having an opinion you appear to disagree with. Maybe he is an expert, maybe it's his hobby, maybe he's not got a clue. He has a right to put his views forward so long as they don't break forum rules.
]
Firstly, what do you do for a living? The reason I ask is that you continually post, on pretty much every police related topic, about what should have been done, what shouldn't have been done, why wasn't this done, did they consider this etc. etc. whilst repeatedly referring to PLAN, NDMM, professional standards guidelines etc. It has made me wonder what you do and, why, as you seem to have all the answers to every policing related topic, you choose to deprive the public of your knowledge and abilities by not actually doing the job.
The other question is - do you spend as much time proffering your opinions and advice to other professions or is just the Police who you feel will benefit from it?
I hope that you will answer these two questions without your usual recourse to random YouTube links and meandering irrelevancies.
quote
It's a forum. Where people post opinions. I don't know if you two have some sort of keyboard "history" but with regard to his comment above, please stop criticising the guy for having an opinion you appear to disagree with. Maybe he is an expert, maybe it's his hobby, maybe he's not got a clue. He has a right to put his views forward so long as they don't break forum rules.
]
Edited by wildcat45 on Thursday 13th March 16:29
There's no where near enough information in than article to pass an informed opinion on the circumstances or the actual laws being used in the prosecution, however:
The key points are that blue light and audible warning use would only by a construction and use regs violation, the claiming of exemptions (for speed, red lights etc) when not entitled would be traffic violation probably resulting in dangerous driving & without due care and attention dependant on what traffic laws were violated, with the blue light use being used as an aggravating factor.
Definition of "Ambulance Use" precedent set in R V. Lord Castle which effectively outlaws motorcycles or RRV's as they are not "exclusively used for the transport of sick or injured" as per the taxation class definition of an ambulance.
The whole thing is a minefield and I would suggest that this prosecution is being driven by one particular individual within ACPO who happens to be on the advisory panel to DfT as far as blue light use is concerned. He has a particular axe to grind with the voluntary sector and has been pushing for prosecutions for some time, rather than wait for the ratification of Sect.19 Road Safety Act the motivation appears to be to seek clarification now.
The ramifications if this case goes all the way is far far greater than it first appears, if the definition of "Ambulance Use" on which they are relying for prosecution is confirmed, then overnight you will see Unison pushing for and getting the grounding of every single Paramedic RRV and Motorcycle in the country, the union will simply not allow their members to operate these vehicles if the High Court uphold their classification. Now that really will not be in the public interest.
Anyone watch "An Hour to save a Life" this week? Those Air Ambulance RRV's in London (and other regions) will not be allowed to operate if this case goes through, nor will the Brummy Paramedics on "Emergency Bikers" the nett result is that without a shadow of a doubt people will die who could otherwise have been saved.
The key points are that blue light and audible warning use would only by a construction and use regs violation, the claiming of exemptions (for speed, red lights etc) when not entitled would be traffic violation probably resulting in dangerous driving & without due care and attention dependant on what traffic laws were violated, with the blue light use being used as an aggravating factor.
Definition of "Ambulance Use" precedent set in R V. Lord Castle which effectively outlaws motorcycles or RRV's as they are not "exclusively used for the transport of sick or injured" as per the taxation class definition of an ambulance.
The whole thing is a minefield and I would suggest that this prosecution is being driven by one particular individual within ACPO who happens to be on the advisory panel to DfT as far as blue light use is concerned. He has a particular axe to grind with the voluntary sector and has been pushing for prosecutions for some time, rather than wait for the ratification of Sect.19 Road Safety Act the motivation appears to be to seek clarification now.
The ramifications if this case goes all the way is far far greater than it first appears, if the definition of "Ambulance Use" on which they are relying for prosecution is confirmed, then overnight you will see Unison pushing for and getting the grounding of every single Paramedic RRV and Motorcycle in the country, the union will simply not allow their members to operate these vehicles if the High Court uphold their classification. Now that really will not be in the public interest.
Anyone watch "An Hour to save a Life" this week? Those Air Ambulance RRV's in London (and other regions) will not be allowed to operate if this case goes through, nor will the Brummy Paramedics on "Emergency Bikers" the nett result is that without a shadow of a doubt people will die who could otherwise have been saved.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff