Laser Jammer: Fine, 5pts, Prison(almost) & Community Service
Discussion
Driver ordered to pay over £2,200 following his admission to both speeding and attempting to pervert the course of justice. He also received five points on his licence, a two month prison sentence suspended for twelve months and ordered to do 100 hours of unpaid work.
Via Pocketgpsworld with discussion thread: http://www.pocketgpsworld.com/Driver-With-Laser-Ja...
Via Pocketgpsworld with discussion thread: http://www.pocketgpsworld.com/Driver-With-Laser-Ja...
What an over the top punishment. I also fail to see how 'perverting the course of justice' comes into this unless after arrest he tried to pervert the course of justice.
If he admitted to having a jammer and knowing what it was doing then where is the perverting the course of justice?
I think he's been well and truly stitched up in order to raise the threat level.
How does this effect cars with parking sensors or distance sensors? They can also effect police laser or so I've read.
If he admitted to having a jammer and knowing what it was doing then where is the perverting the course of justice?
I think he's been well and truly stitched up in order to raise the threat level.
How does this effect cars with parking sensors or distance sensors? They can also effect police laser or so I've read.
Boosted LS1 said:
What an over the top punishment. I also fail to see how 'perverting the course of justice' comes into this unless after arrest he tried to pervert the course of justice.
If he admitted to having a jammer and knowing what it was doing then where is the perverting the course of justice?
A course of justice must have been embarked upon in that proceedings have commenced or are imminent, or an investigation which could result in proceedings has commenced.If he admitted to having a jammer and knowing what it was doing then where is the perverting the course of justice?
Boosted LS1 said:
I think he's been well and truly stitched up in order to raise the threat level.
Raise what threat level? These offences have been punished in a similar manner for some time. Boosted LS1 said:
What an over the top punishment. I also fail to see how 'perverting the course of justice' comes into this unless after arrest he tried to pervert the course of justice.
If he admitted to having a jammer and knowing what it was doing then where is the perverting the course of justice?
I imagine the CPS think they are stretching it every time, but give it a go anyway. Looking at the charging guidelines:If he admitted to having a jammer and knowing what it was doing then where is the perverting the course of justice?
"The course of justice must be in existence at the time of the act(s). The course of justice starts when:
- an event has occurred, from which it can reasonably be expected that an investigation will follow; or
- investigations which could/might bring proceedings have actually started; or
- proceedings have started or are about to start."
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/public_justice_...
I think they are saying that the speeding towards a camera is the act, and although the device might be permanently activated it's still an act of PCOJ. I think the CPS view it as serious because the defendant made a very conscious decision to install the devices with the sole purpose of evading justice.
Boosted LS1 said:
How does this effect cars with parking sensors or distance sensors? They can also effect police laser or so I've read.
That was one brand which was sold as a "garage door opener" and which had a side-effect of blocking laser speed meters. I doubt anybody has ever bought one for anything other than blocking speed guns:http://www.beltronicsstore.co.uk/Target_LaserTrack...
Gareth79 said:
I imagine the CPS think they are stretching it every time, but give it a go anyway. Looking at the charging guidelines:
"The course of justice must be in existence at the time of the act(s). The course of justice starts when:
- an event has occurred, from which it can reasonably be expected that an investigation will follow; or
- investigations which could/might bring proceedings have actually started; or
- proceedings have started or are about to start."
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/public_justice_...
I think they are saying that the speeding towards a camera is the act, and although the device might be permanently activated it's still an act of PCOJ. I think the CPS view it as serious because the defendant made a very conscious decision to install the devices with the sole purpose of evading justice.
It's not stretching it. "The course of justice must be in existence at the time of the act(s). The course of justice starts when:
- an event has occurred, from which it can reasonably be expected that an investigation will follow; or
- investigations which could/might bring proceedings have actually started; or
- proceedings have started or are about to start."
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/public_justice_...
I think they are saying that the speeding towards a camera is the act, and although the device might be permanently activated it's still an act of PCOJ. I think the CPS view it as serious because the defendant made a very conscious decision to install the devices with the sole purpose of evading justice.
The device is being aimed at the vehicle with the purpose of gathering evidence as part of an investigation.
The act is using jammer to prevent a reading being obtained.
The outcome prevents (or risks preventing) proceedings which would otherwise occur.
Boosted LS1 said:
How does this effect cars with parking sensors or distance sensors? They can also effect police laser or so I've read.
A jammer has to detect the incoming pulse stream, decide what gun it is and fire back the correct sequence of pulses within the guns timing window in order to make it think it has errored. Just trying to blind it with randon emmisions on the same wavelength doesnt work as the gun has filters and corrections.Hence it is hard to argue a jammer is only a parking sensor when they contain software specifically designed to confuse speed guns.
I had one on my car but never bothered to transfer it to my new one mainly because it is a faff to wire up. But to be honest cases like this make you think it is not worth the risk to the gains, despite them not being specifically outlawed as that piece of legislation was never fully completed iirc.
dogbucket said:
A jammer has to detect the incoming pulse stream, decide what gun it is and fire back the correct sequence of pulses within the guns timing window in order to make it think it has errored. Just trying to blind it with randon emmisions on the same wavelength doesnt work as the gun has filters and corrections.
Hence it is hard to argue a jammer is only a parking sensor when they contain software specifically designed to confuse speed guns.
I had one on my car but never bothered to transfer it to my new one mainly because it is a faff to wire up. But to be honest cases like this make you think it is not worth the risk to the gains, despite them not being specifically outlawed as that piece of legislation was never fully completed iirc.
And that right there is exactly why they made an example out of him, and the small number of previous cases involving jammers.Hence it is hard to argue a jammer is only a parking sensor when they contain software specifically designed to confuse speed guns.
I had one on my car but never bothered to transfer it to my new one mainly because it is a faff to wire up. But to be honest cases like this make you think it is not worth the risk to the gains, despite them not being specifically outlawed as that piece of legislation was never fully completed iirc.
Interesting comments above but I'd prefer the efforts to be put into more serious crimes. The motoring public are being beaten with a blunt instrument with ever escalating consequences. The legal points raised above are interesting though. I didn't know that if a policeman targets me he's already started an investigation.
La Liga said:
Boosted LS1 said:
What an over the top punishment. I also fail to see how 'perverting the course of justice' comes into this unless after arrest he tried to pervert the course of justice.
If he admitted to having a jammer and knowing what it was doing then where is the perverting the course of justice?
A course of justice must have been embarked upon in that proceedings have commenced or are imminent, or an investigation which could result in proceedings has commenced.If he admitted to having a jammer and knowing what it was doing then where is the perverting the course of justice?
Boosted LS1 said:
I think he's been well and truly stitched up in order to raise the threat level.
Raise what threat level? These offences have been punished in a similar manner for some time. Boosted LS1 said:
Exactly. Keep making scapegoats of people until we all get the message.
I think most people can figure out 'the message' of not jamming speed cameras without people getting the low end of sentencing for the offence. Jazzy Jag said:
By the same token, any toe rag that commits a crime wearing a hood or mask to hide their identity, or who disables CCTV is equally guilty of PCJ?
An investigation hasn't commenced when wearing the hoodie. I imagine there's potential if it's police CCTV, which is deployed as a part of a specific investigation.
La Liga said:
Boosted LS1 said:
Exactly. Keep making scapegoats of people until we all get the message.
I think most people can figure out 'the message' of not jamming speed cameras without people getting the low end of sentencing for the offence. Jazzy Jag said:
By the same token, any toe rag that commits a crime wearing a hood or mask to hide their identity, or who disables CCTV is equally guilty of PCJ?
An investigation hasn't commenced when wearing the hoodie. I imagine there's potential if it's police CCTV, which is deployed as a part of a specific investigation.
An 'Investigation'?
Is persuading us that pointing a laser gun at us in the hope of another tick in the stats box is an 'investigation' what the PCoJ charge relies on?
Somewhat lame at best.
They are grasping at straws because they want the deterrent to the use of jammers to have as much impact as possible. ASAP.
Is persuading us that pointing a laser gun at us in the hope of another tick in the stats box is an 'investigation' what the PCoJ charge relies on?
Somewhat lame at best.
They are grasping at straws because they want the deterrent to the use of jammers to have as much impact as possible. ASAP.
MTech535 said:
How would it play out if the person with the jammer was not speeding, I.e. the was no offence committed?
The offence may be committed even if in the result the act does not affect the course of justice. The offence is complete when the act is done with the requisite intent, and does not cease to be criminal because it does not have the intended effect of perverting the course of justice. It is sufficient if the act creates a significant risk that the course of justice will be affected. In a criminal case, the course of justice includes the police investigation of a possible crime. An act that makes that investigation more difficult, or which may mislead the police in their investigation, may tend to pervert the course of justice; see R v T [2011].agtlaw said:
A better point might be that whilst an offender wearing a hoodie might intend to pervert the course of public justice, the actus reus of the offence is doing an act (or embarking on a course of conduct) which tends to pervert the course of public justice. Wearing a hoodie is not a criminal act and of itself does not "tend to pervert the course of public justice."
I defer to your expertise. cmaguire said:
An 'Investigation'?
Is persuading us that pointing a laser gun at us in the hope of another tick in the stats box is an 'investigation' what the PCoJ charge relies on?
Somewhat lame at best.
They are grasping at straws because they want the deterrent to the use of jammers to have as much impact as possible. ASAP.
Why ASAP? Is persuading us that pointing a laser gun at us in the hope of another tick in the stats box is an 'investigation' what the PCoJ charge relies on?
Somewhat lame at best.
They are grasping at straws because they want the deterrent to the use of jammers to have as much impact as possible. ASAP.
Is there some large increase that needs to be quelled?
What else is evidence gathering if not an investigation?
cmaguire said:
ASAP because at present the use of jammers is so low.
If the public were aware they could use them and get away with it the sales would skyrocket (most people don't even know they exist, whereas in the US they sell loads of them)
Part of any prosecution is to have a prohibitive effect. If the public were aware they could use them and get away with it the sales would skyrocket (most people don't even know they exist, whereas in the US they sell loads of them)
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff