Laser Jammer: Fine, 5pts, Prison(almost) & Community Service

[MTech535]

agtlaw said:

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].

Going back to the previously mentioned hoody analogy, would this mean that if someone inadvertently is captured on police camera during a surveillance operation, and their identity concealed by said hoody, they could be prosecuted for pcoj, despite being entirely innocent?

[cmaguire]

The investigating officer commented: "Kitto believed that he was above the law and didn't think he should have to abide by the speed limit, like everyone else. His deliberate action to pervert the course of justice by fitting this type of device to his vehicle, clearly shows his disregard for the law and the safety of other road users."


This sanctimonious crap is tiresome too.
It doesn't show a clear disregard for THE law, what it does clearly show is a lack of respect for (certain) speed limits. As regards the safety of other road users, there's no evidence of him having impacted on their safety either.

[agtlaw]

AMG Merc said:

Isn't the offence along the lines of receiving or interfering with a home office approved radio signal or similar? Same as listening in on BiB communications.

No, but see s. 18 of the Road Safety Act 2006. On the statute books, but not yet in force. Note that the offence is non-imprisonable and carries the same penalty as speeding.

Edited by agtlaw on Saturday 11th February 18:19

[agtlaw]

MTech535 said:

agtlaw said:

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].

Going back to the previously mentioned hoody analogy, would this mean that if someone inadvertently is captured on police camera during a surveillance operation, and their identity concealed by said hoody, they could be prosecuted for pcoj, despite being entirely innocent?

The Court of Appeal in R v Sookoo [2002] deprecated a charge of perverting the course of justice where the appellant gave a false name. The court said that where an offender had attempted to hide his identity and inevitably failed, prosecutors should not include a specific count of perverting the course of justice. The offence in this case was unsophisticated. His true identity was soon discovered. The court held that it may be appropriate to charge the common law offence "where there are serious aggravating features in the attempt to pervert the course of justice."

Edited by agtlaw on Saturday 11th February 18:20

[MTech535]

Sorry agtlaw I'm none the wiser following your response, could you simply it for me please?

[agtlaw]

MTech535 said:

Sorry agtlaw I'm none the wiser following your response, could you simplify it for me please?

The offence requires a positive act. It cannot be committed by omission. Wearing a hoodie is legal and normal (for some people). The hooded man might intend to hide his identity and therefore make an investigation more difficult. However, the law also requires the criminal act to "tend to pervert the course of justice."

The prosecutor must prove:

- the doing of some act
- which has a tendency to pervert the administration of public justice; and
- is intended to pervert the administration of public justice.

The prosecutor does not have to prove that a separate offence was committed. In other words, the attempt may fail.

Senior judges say that the offence should not be charged unless there are "serious aggravating features" and this would not be so where the offence is unsophisticated. E.g. simply wearing a hoodie.

[cmaguire]

agtlaw said:

No, but see s. 18 of the Road Safety Act 2006. On the statute books, but not yet in force. Note that the offence is non-imprisonable and carries the same penalty as speeding.

Edited by agtlaw on Saturday 11th February 18:19

Having read that link I'm wondering...
What percentage of your fees are based on the ability not to fall asleep whilst reading documents in 'legal speak'?

[MTech535]

agtlaw said:

MTech535 said:

Sorry agtlaw I'm none the wiser following your response, could you simplify it for me please?

The offence requires a positive act. It cannot be committed by omission. Wearing a hoodie is legal and normal (for some people). The hooded man might intend to hide his identity and therefore make an investigation more difficult. However, the law also requires the criminal act to "tend to pervert the course of justice."

The prosecutor must prove:

- the doing of some act
- which has a tendency to pervert the administration of public justice; and
- is intended to pervert the administration of public justice.

The prosecutor does not have to prove that a separate offence was committed. In other words, the attempt may fail.

Senior judges say that the offence should not be charged unless there are "serious aggravating features" and this would not be so where the offence is unsophisticated. E.g. simply wearing a hoodie.

Thank you.

With regards to laser jammers, does the simple act of fitting one to a vehicle then mean potential prosecution for pcoj, or is the crime only committed when a police officer decides to investigate you with their equipment?

[Durzel]

cmaguire said:

This sanctimonious crap is tiresome too.
It doesn't show a clear disregard for THE law, what it does clearly show is a lack of respect for (certain) speed limits. As regards the safety of other road users, there's no evidence of him having impacted on their safety either.

I don't know if you're being willfully obtuse, or not...

The speed limits ARE the law. You can disagree with them if you like, you can be cheesed off if you get caught doing a "soft" speed, and we can all debate whether X limit on Y road is appropriate, but none of that changes the fact that the limit is the limit. You choosing to ignore them because you think they're too low doesn't mean you aren't at risk of detection and prosecution.

[Boosted LS1]

MTech535 said:

agtlaw said:

MTech535 said:

Sorry agtlaw I'm none the wiser following your response, could you simplify it for me please?

The offence requires a positive act. It cannot be committed by omission. Wearing a hoodie is legal and normal (for some people). The hooded man might intend to hide his identity and therefore make an investigation more difficult. However, the law also requires the criminal act to "tend to pervert the course of justice."

The prosecutor must prove:

- the doing of some act
- which has a tendency to pervert the administration of public justice; and
- is intended to pervert the administration of public justice.

The prosecutor does not have to prove that a separate offence was committed. In other words, the attempt may fail.

Senior judges say that the offence should not be charged unless there are "serious aggravating features" and this would not be so where the offence is unsophisticated. E.g. simply wearing a hoodie.

Thank you.

With regards to laser jammers, does the simple act of fitting one to a vehicle then mean potential prosecution for pcoj, or is the crime only committed when a police officer decides to investigate you with their equipment?

Or could it be because you admitted to using it to jam their equipment or that that was the intention?

[cmaguire]

Durzel said:

I don't know if you're being willfully obtuse, or not...

The speed limits ARE the law. You can disagree with them if you like, you can be cheesed off if you get caught doing a "soft" speed, and we can all debate whether X limit on Y road is appropriate, but none of that changes the fact that the limit is the limit. You choosing to ignore them because you think they're too low doesn't mean you aren't at risk of detection and prosecution.

I can ignore them and that in no way reflects on my moral compass as regards the law in general. This whole 'speed kills' ste and the ensuing crusade puts it in a place that differentiates it from the law in general.

[0a]

Indeed.

This seems vastly disproportionate. However it's unsurprisingly given limited police resources and the move to seeing speeding as the main interaction between the public and the police - "it's a crime" to notch up. Anything that prevents that will be targeted over more difficult policing or anything more useful.

[anonymous-user]

0a said:

Anything that prevents that will be targeted over more difficult policing.

No it won't.

[Durzel]

cmaguire said:

Durzel said:

I don't know if you're being willfully obtuse, or not...

The speed limits ARE the law. You can disagree with them if you like, you can be cheesed off if you get caught doing a "soft" speed, and we can all debate whether X limit on Y road is appropriate, but none of that changes the fact that the limit is the limit. You choosing to ignore them because you think they're too low doesn't mean you aren't at risk of detection and prosecution.

I can ignore them and that in no way reflects on my moral compass as regards the law in general. This whole 'speed kills' ste and the ensuing crusade puts it in a place that differentiates it from the law in general.

No one is casting aspersions on your moral compass. I think most would be in agreement on here that exceeding speed limits, at least by socially conscious amounts (e.g. not 60 in a residential 30), is a "soft" crime.

Notwithstanding that, your original post read:

cmaguire said:

It doesn't show a clear disregard for THE law, what it does clearly show is a lack of respect for (certain) speed limits

..which is simply false.

Exceeding the speed limit, by any amount, manifestly shows a clear disregard for the Law. It is against the Law to exceed posted speed limits. If you go faster than them then you are breaking the Law. It really is that simple and morals and debates on here are entirely academic.

[cmaguire]

Durzel said:

..which is simply false.

Exceeding the speed limit, by any amount, manifestly shows a clear disregard for the Law. It is against the Law to exceed posted speed limits, if you go faster than them then you are breaking the Law. It really is that simple and morals and debates on here are entirely academic.

The Law is somewhat more expansive than speed limits.
I can ignore them but obey the rest. That doesn't constitute a disregard for the law IN GENERAL. What it does do is demonstrate a specific lack of respect for one minor aspect of the law, and deservedly so because their current attitude to speed is flawed.

[Durzel]

cmaguire said:

The Law is somewhat more expansive than speed limits.

Goes without saying.

cmaguire said:

I can ignore them but obey the rest.

You can of course, but that doesn't make you immune from detection and prosecution for the ones you do break.

cmaguire said:

That doesn't constitute a disregard for the law IN GENERAL.

No one ever said it did.

cmaguire said:

What it does do is demonstrate a specific lack of respect for one minor aspect of the law, and deservedly so because their current attitude to speed is flawed.

As an independant person with your own free will you are of course free to break whatever laws of the land that you choose, whether they be egregious to the general sensibilities of society, or things like exceeding speed limits, downloading copyrighted material, smoking some weed, etc - which many people will view as "soft", or not really crimes at all (hint: they still are).

None of this alters the fact that if you exceed speed limits you open yourself up to prosecution. So long as you accept that, there is no issue. The people who are incredulous when they get caught, as if speed limits aren't the most obvious, widely known and unambiguous restrictions that exist, those are the ones that need to wise up, frankly.

You can think speed limits are too low, you can break them if you choose, but you are bound by them regardless and so long as you're in this country you always will be.

[pingu393]

MTech535 said:

Thank you.

With regards to laser jammers, does the simple act of fitting one to a vehicle then mean potential prosecution for pcoj, or is the crime only committed when a police officer decides to investigate you with their equipment?

Best question on this thread - and I don't think it has been answered by someone who knows the answer.

I think if you admit to having it fitted in order to jam lasers, you are PCOJ.

I think if it is in use when you are lasered, you are PCOJ - whether you were speeding or not.

[Boosted LS1]

pingu393 said:

MTech535 said:

Thank you.

With regards to laser jammers, does the simple act of fitting one to a vehicle then mean potential prosecution for pcoj, or is the crime only committed when a police officer decides to investigate you with their equipment?

Best question on this thread - and I don't think it has been answered by someone who knows the answer.

I think if you admit to having it fitted in order to jam lasers, you are PCOJ.

I think if it is in use when you are lasered, you are PCOJ - whether you were speeding or not.

It could be a distance or parking sensor, garage door sensor. What then?

[BlackLabel]

I see they also seized his dashcam. If he was found not guilty of the main offence could they have done him for the individual speeding offences recorded on his dashcam?

"His dashcam was also recovered by police with 78 clips. Nine showed him travelling at excessive speed."

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/ne...

[ellroy]

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

Thread already running.