PC Milton's conviction upheld
Discussion
Before any one asks:
Where a Court is of opinion, having regard to the circumstances
including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, that it is inexpedient to inflict punishment and that a probation Order is not appropriate it may make an order discharging him absolutely or alternatively discharging him subject to the condition that he commits no offence during such period, not excdeeding three years from the date of the order, as may be specified.
If offence committed during that period then he can be sentenced for the original offence by the Court issung the order.
Powers of Criminal Court (Sentencing) Act 2000. S 12
dvd
Where a Court is of opinion, having regard to the circumstances
including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, that it is inexpedient to inflict punishment and that a probation Order is not appropriate it may make an order discharging him absolutely or alternatively discharging him subject to the condition that he commits no offence during such period, not excdeeding three years from the date of the order, as may be specified.
If offence committed during that period then he can be sentenced for the original offence by the Court issung the order.
Powers of Criminal Court (Sentencing) Act 2000. S 12
dvd
(per a piece in local press. A small paragraph. FishFace said:
With this case I at first thought it was unquestionable he was guility of at least speeding. However, if he were on a Police driving course he would make as much progress as was safe to do so on national speed limit roads.
In light of this that his reason of 'testing the car' didn't seem that unreasonable. To me, at least.
Also, is speed dangerous per se?
He shouldn't have been doing what he was doing, he got away with speeding because the judge decided there weren't clear enough standing orders to him that he shouldn't be doing it (at least that's my reading of it). There now are. In light of this that his reason of 'testing the car' didn't seem that unreasonable. To me, at least.
Also, is speed dangerous per se?
That meant he was acquitted of speeding, but still had the dangerous driving charge.
The judge has taken into consideration everything for that & decided it was dangerous driving. It's not speed per se that is dangerous, but his use of it in those circumstances has been judged to be. Circumstances matter.
I thought that the original verdict was the right one. It's not in the public interests to penalise him for it. He must have driven at very high speeds in training and persuits etc etc in the past. The amazing thing about this is that the CPS actually appealed against the original not guilty verdict!!! Thats not on! It should be the case that once pronounced not guilty you walk away free. Not get called back cos the CPS get stroppy with losing!!
skymaster said:
I thought that the original verdict was the right one. It's not in the public interests to penalise him for it. He must have driven at very high speeds in training and persuits etc etc in the past. The amazing thing about this is that the CPS actually appealed against the original not guilty verdict!!! Thats not on! It should be the case that once pronounced not guilty you walk away free. Not get called back cos the CPS get stroppy with losing!!
They appealed against the original verdict because the District Judge mis-directed himself.The second District Judge did the same thing but for slightly different reasons.
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 26th July 00:41
vonhosen said:
skymaster said:
I thought that the original verdict was the right one. It's not in the public interests to penalise him for it. He must have driven at very high speeds in training and persuits etc etc in the past. The amazing thing about this is that the CPS actually appealed against the original not guilty verdict!!! Thats not on! It should be the case that once pronounced not guilty you walk away free. Not get called back cos the CPS get stroppy with losing!!
They appealed against the original verdict because the District Judge mis-directed himself.The second District Judge did the same thing but for slightly different reasons.
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 26th July 00:41
one rule for us one for the Nazi storm troopers.
fukthelaw said:
...
still dont change the fact it was just another way of letting a pig off.
one rule for us one for the Nazi storm troopers.
Welcome to pistonheads,still dont change the fact it was just another way of letting a pig off.
one rule for us one for the Nazi storm troopers.
Round here we encourage debate rather that stupid one liners designed to inflame or otherwise irritate the rest of the community.
Also i can't see your name lasting long either
Silent1 said:
fukthelaw said:
...
still dont change the fact it was just another way of letting a pig off.
one rule for us one for the Nazi storm troopers.
Welcome to pistonheads,still dont change the fact it was just another way of letting a pig off.
one rule for us one for the Nazi storm troopers.
Round here we encourage debate rather that stupid one liners designed to inflame or otherwise irritate the rest of the community.
Also i can't see your name lasting long either
Edited by fukthelaw on Thursday 26th July 04:13
fukthelaw said:
Silent1 said:
fukthelaw said:
...
still dont change the fact it was just another way of letting a pig off.
one rule for us one for the Nazi storm troopers.
Welcome to pistonheads,still dont change the fact it was just another way of letting a pig off.
one rule for us one for the Nazi storm troopers.
Round here we encourage debate rather that stupid one liners designed to inflame or otherwise irritate the rest of the community.
Also i can't see your name lasting long either
Edited by fukthelaw on Thursday 26th July 04:13
Silent1 said:
fukthelaw said:
Silent1 said:
fukthelaw said:
...
still dont change the fact it was just another way of letting a pig off.
one rule for us one for the Nazi storm troopers.
Welcome to pistonheads,still dont change the fact it was just another way of letting a pig off.
one rule for us one for the Nazi storm troopers.
Round here we encourage debate rather that stupid one liners designed to inflame or otherwise irritate the rest of the community.
Also i can't see your name lasting long either
Edited by fukthelaw on Thursday 26th July 04:13
fukthelaw said:
Silent1 said:
fukthelaw said:
Silent1 said:
fukthelaw said:
...
still dont change the fact it was just another way of letting a pig off.
one rule for us one for the Nazi storm troopers.
Welcome to pistonheads,still dont change the fact it was just another way of letting a pig off.
one rule for us one for the Nazi storm troopers.
Round here we encourage debate rather that stupid one liners designed to inflame or otherwise irritate the rest of the community.
Also i can't see your name lasting long either
Edited by fukthelaw on Thursday 26th July 04:13
But i'm not baiting you am i? Or are you not used to forums with erudite conversation?
Edited by Silent1 on Thursday 26th July 04:29
fukthelaw said:
Silent1 said:
fukthelaw said:
whats this the your forum version of flashing. put it away before you get a static shock of your monitor.
That's the bit i enjoy 
Silent1 said:
fukthelaw said:
Silent1 said:
fukthelaw said:
whats this the your forum version of flashing. put it away before you get a static shock of your monitor.
That's the bit i enjoy just remember to wipe down mothers lcd monitor after your done.
Edited by fukthelaw on Thursday 26th July 04:58
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff