Ex-Eastender cleared of speeding 131mph on M40
Discussion
A former EastEnders actor has been cleared of driving at 131mph after a policeman failed to attend his trial.
Dean Gaffney, who played Robbie Fowler, was alleged to have committed the offence on the M40 in Warwickshire.
After the hearing at Mid Warwickshire Magistrates' Court, his solicitor Nick Freeman said the actor had always denied breaking the speed limit.
Mr Gaffney, 28, of Cobham, Surrey, was stopped in his Audi in June 2005, close to Warwick Services.
Mr Freeman revealed that Mr Gaffney had also been awarded costs by magistrates.
'Lessons learnt'
The actor was allegedly caught travelling at 131mph over a distance of 270m (300yds) near Warwick Services.
Mr Freeman said two officers were involved in the laser-based speed trap, but that one of them had not attended Tuesday's hearing in Leamington Spa.
He said: "One officer attended and the other one was on a training course despite being warned of the trial date.
"He had been warned (to attend court) in March and the prosecution asked for an adjournment.
"I opposed that... the court said the case would go ahead and the prosecution then offered no evidence."
A spokesman for the Central Motorway Police Group said the body was investigating the matter and would be liaising with prosecutors to see what lessons could be learnt.
Mr Gaffney was unavailable for comment.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/co
shuvitupya said:
MrFlibbles said:
Good old Nick!
Yes, a very clever lawyer, and worth every penny if you can afford him.
Yeah, a fantastic guy who defends serial drunks and dangerous drivers, not because they're in any way innocent but because they can afford to pay him. What a hero for the common man, he should be given a medal...
Hollywood Wheels said:
shuvitupya said:
MrFlibbles said:
Good old Nick!
Yes, a very clever lawyer, and worth every penny if you can afford him.
Yeah, a fantastic guy who defends serial drunks and dangerous drivers, not because they're in any way innocent but because they can afford to pay him. What a hero for the common man, he should be given a medal...
But if the CPS and witnesses did their job properly, then people like Nick Freeman would be on the dole queue
You can make a difference.
Hollywood Wheels said:
shuvitupya said:
MrFlibbles said:
Good old Nick!
Yes, a very clever lawyer, and worth every penny if you can afford him.
Yeah, a fantastic guy who defends serial drunks and dangerous drivers, not because they're in any way innocent but because they can afford to pay him. What a hero for the common man, he should be given a medal...
or in this case serial t
ts...... How come on one thread people are berating a copper for doing 159mph but on here applauding a solicitor for getting a guy off a 130mph ticket on a technicality?
And why did it matter that both policeman didn't attend, surely one was enough of the forces time wasted - the evidence already having been gathered at the scene.
And why did it matter that both policeman didn't attend, surely one was enough of the forces time wasted - the evidence already having been gathered at the scene.
tigger1 said:
How come on one thread people are berating a copper for doing 159mph but on here applauding a solicitor for getting a guy off a 130mph ticket on a technicality?
We should collectively condemn any prosecutions pertaining to the bogus term 'excess speed' on open roads, dual carriageways and motorways when it is conceivable that 'conditions allowed.'
Obviously, that's an interpretive point but I'm sure 99% of PHers accept that 150 on a literally empty m-way can be perfectly safe.
Therefore, it fundamentally harms the cause to condemn a trafpol's exemption since such instances become valuable ammunition in the argument for said cause.
The M40 should at times be an autobahn.
Edited by derestrictor on Wednesday 7th June 08:32
tigger1 said:
How come on one thread people are berating a copper for doing 159mph but on here applauding a solicitor for getting a guy off a 130mph ticket on a technicality?
It's very simple:
Policemen are meant to uphold the law and lead by example. 159mph is not a good example.
Conversely, the particular law that is being upheld (i.e. speed limits) is viewed by many to be unnecessary and only there for political reasons. Furthermore, the speeding law is inconsistently and appallingly policed. It is therefore a great relief to those who bear a (sometimes justified) grudge against "the system" when someone is cleared because the courts are not competent enough to do their job.
Hollywood Wheels said:
shuvitupya said:
MrFlibbles said:
Good old Nick!
Yes, a very clever lawyer, and worth every penny if you can afford him.
Yeah, a fantastic guy who defends serial drunks and dangerous drivers, not because they're in any way innocent but because they can afford to pay him. What a hero for the common man, he should be given a medal...
There was more than a hint of sarcasm in my post.
Of course I dont applaud the defence of "dangerous driving" - however - Im sure most of the members on here have hit 1.3 units at one time or other (I havent, of course) and there is a difference between dangerous driving and plain old speeding.
Edited by MrFlibbles on Wednesday 7th June 08:55
derestrictor said:
tigger1 said:
How come on one thread people are berating a copper for doing 159mph but on here applauding a solicitor for getting a guy off a 130mph ticket on a technicality?
We should collectively condemn any prosecutions pertaining to the bogus term 'excess speed' on open roads, dual carriageways and motorways when it is conceivable that 'conditions allowed.'
Obviously, that's an interpretive point but I'm sure 99% of PHers accept that 150 on a literally empty m-way can be perfectly safe.
Therefore, it fundamentally harms the cause to condemn a trafpol's exemption since such instances become valuable ammunition in the argument for said cause.
The M40 should at times be an autobahn.
Edited by derestrictor on Wednesday 7th June 08:32
well it is full of german cars
Raify said:
story said:
A spokesman for the Central Motorway Police Group said the body was investigating the matter and would be liaising with prosecutors to see what lessons could be learnt.
I'll save you the trouble:
Turn up to court!CPS have every Bib's convenient dates. That includes holidays, courses and night shifts.
CPS routinely fail to consider the impact of court on everyday difficulties where Bib are severely inconvenienced by court dates that are set without taking any consideration what an individual officers commitmets are.
This includes taking officers off night shifts at short notice, leaving their teams short staffed and the public short changed on service issues.
CPS routinely call officers off night shifts and on days off to attend. Police regs allow the day to be re-allocated regardless of the commitments that the Bib may have on that day.
Turn up to court![/quote] May not be as simple as you may think! That course may have been important and require 100% attendance to secure an authorisation and it may also have bee expensive to deliver.
CPS do not care about that.
It is very difficult to get witnesses together on the same day on occasions, especially if there are civilian witnesses involved. This does not usually apply to 2 bib from the same department on the same duties!
Would Nick Freeman attend court at short notice at 0300 hours on a Sunday night if courts ran at such times? I very much doubt it. I expect he would demand an adjournment
to a much more convenient time for him. mg6b said:
Would Nick Freeman attend court at short notice at 0300 hours on a Sunday night if courts ran at such times? I very much doubt it. I expect he would demand an adjournment to a much more convenient time for him.
If his client was paying him and it meant his client would not be convicted then I suspect he would. to a much more convenient time for him. This is not directed at you personally mg, but we have a system of law enforcement that we are constantly reminded is black and white. There is no such thing as a grey area in law. We are being bombarded with reminders (threats?) that if you speed by as much as one MPH then you will be prosecuted.
If the message the electorate receives from the judicial system is that this is how things are going to be then I think it's pretty unreasonable to complain when the law is merely executed with the same degree of dilligence in reverse.
)getting caught exceeding a silly arbitrary number is getting caught on a technicality. getting off on a technicality is fair game. good luck to him.
exceeding a 40 year old arbitrary number is in NO WAY comparable to drunk or dangerous driving.
exceeding a 40 year old arbitrary number is in NO WAY comparable to drunk or dangerous driving.
Edited by francisb on Wednesday 7th June 11:35
francisb said:
getting caught exceeding a silly arbitrary number is getting caught on a technicality. getting off on a technicality is fair game. good luck to him.
exceeding an arbitrary number is in NO WAY comparable to drunk or dangerous driving.
exceeding an arbitrary number is in NO WAY comparable to drunk or dangerous driving.
True, which is why I've made no comment about that oil painting from Eastenders. My point was about Nick Freeman. I truly do detest this man. He admits himself that he beats cases on technical reasons, not because he believes his client is innocent of the charge, or has any morals whatsoever. He HAS won cases for serial drink-drivers, then boasts about making the Court pay damages and costs, like he's won some sort of victory for the common man. Maybe someone can correct me, but I've never seen him on PH volunteering to represent some of the people who regularly post here about 'miscarriages of justice' and 'it ain't fair guv i should have just had a rollicking'......
Just because of our shambles of a judicial system and the fact that CPS couldn't organize a piss-up in a brewery, doesn't make it right that those blatantly guilty of certain offences should just walk away scott free, simply because they have the means to pay a man like Freeman. No wonder the Officer in the case didn't turn up, he probably thought 'what the hell is the point'. To be honest I can't say I blame him. What a sad reflection on our faith in the 'justice' system....
Hollywood Wheels said:
Just because of our shambles of a judicial system and the fact that CPS couldn't organize a piss-up in a brewery, doesn't make it right that those blatantly guilty of certain offences should just walk away scott free, simply because they have the means to pay a man like Freeman. No wonder the Officer in the case didn't turn up, he probably thought 'what the hell is the point'. To be honest I can't say I blame him. What a sad reflection on our faith in the 'justice' system....
Innocent until proven guilty, so they're not guilty are they?
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff