PtCoJ not as serious as it once was?

[Mill Wheel]

http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk/news/153746...

A youth has been caught by a speed camera located on my route from work to home, travelling at a speed number usually reserved by trombones in big parades... SIX MPH over the motorway limit, in a 40 MPH area.
He then contacted police and reported his number plates stolen, and claimed that the car in the picture of the offence was not his.

At 19 he will not have held his license for two years, so 6 points could have seen him banned - he was given 5 points.
His PtCoJ could have earned him 4 months in jail, like Chris Hune - but instead, his 16 week jail sentence was suspended.

I wonder if the "Safety" camera operated by the Cumbria Safety Camera Partnership is operating correctly.
76 mph doesn't seem safe, given one former KSI involved a pedestrian lying down in the road, and the driver in this instance was not stopped or detained from travelling on at any speed he chose.
His only penalty appears to be 150 hours of unpaid [community] work... but how is he to learn the error of his ways if he doesn't sit a retest or a speed awareness course?

I know of lots of people who do community work... councillors, first responders, etc, who have not committed any offences. It is hardly a punishment!

[TooMany2cvs]

Mill Wheel said:

http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk/news/153746...

A youth has been caught by a speed camera located on my route from work to home, travelling at a speed number usually reserved by trombones in big parades... SIX MPH over the motorway limit, in a 40 MPH area.
He then contacted police and reported his number plates stolen, and claimed that the car in the picture of the offence was not his.

At 19 he will not have held his license for two years, so 6 points could have seen him banned - he was given 5 points.
His PtCoJ could have earned him 4 months in jail, like Chris Hune - but instead, his 16 week jail sentence was suspended.

I wonder if the "Safety" camera operated by the Cumbria Safety Camera Partnership is operating correctly.
76 mph doesn't seem safe, given one former KSI involved a pedestrian lying down in the road, and the driver in this instance was not stopped or detained from travelling on at any speed he chose.
His only penalty appears to be 150 hours of unpaid [community] work... but how is he to learn the error of his ways if he doesn't sit a retest or a speed awareness course?

I know of lots of people who do community work... councillors, first responders, etc, who have not committed any offences. It is hardly a punishment!

Let's break it down into the two offences...

Guilty plea to 76 in a 40.
Let's put the BRAKE/Mumsnet bks back in the box - it was here... https://goo.gl/maps/p1Xnj5Z7vyL2
Five points, just under the threshold to go back to L plates. Doesn't seem totally unrealistic.

Guilty plea to PCoJ, a lame story about how the photo wasn't his car, and the plates were nicked...
16wk prison, suspended for a year, 150hrs community service. Again, doesn't seem ridiculously lenient.

[Mill Wheel]

I didn't realise there were varying degrees of PtCoJ... I thought you either had committed it or you hadn't.

Don't let the StreetView fool you - the pub and filling station on one side of the road, and stables and a caravan site on the other, with the road crossing between the north and southbound cameras has led to incidents in the past. Not that it needs a speed camera to fix the problems... they actually made things worse... and they don't catch all the speeders!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXrcjRi3zqY

[donkmeister]

Mill Wheel said:

I didn't realise there were varying degrees of PtCoJ... I thought you either had committed it or you hadn't.
]

Chris Huhne was an MP and should be held to a higher standard than a dumb kid. He also conspired with his then-wife to pervert justice, the kid acted alone. Also Huhne denied all until he was already on trial - did the kid do so? He only served 2 months in the end too.

[TooMany2cvs]

Mill Wheel said:

I didn't realise there were varying degrees of PtCoJ... I thought you either had committed it or you hadn't.

The maximum sentence is life imprisonment.

Obviously, that wouldn't be appropriate for this case... would it...?

It's in proportion to the offence. Try to lie your way out of a relatively minor offence, the PCoJ sentence is going to be serious compared to the offence, but minor compared to the PCoJ sentence if you try to lie your way out of a serious one.

[mygoldfishbowl]

Mill Wheel said:

I know of lots of people who do community work... councillors, first responders, etc, who have not committed any offences. It is hardly a punishment!

But they are getting paid for something they have chosen to do. To do community service is not getting paid for something you don't want to do.

Years ago I had to do 240 hours at an inner city children's zoo feeding & mucking out animals etc. Hardly the same as being a councillor or first responder.

[paul789]

mygoldfishbowl said:

first responder.

Oh dear. Did you type that 'out of an abundance of caution'? Are you 'in lockdown'? Do you typically go to a bar and 'reach out' to 'get' a 'bud'?

[agtlaw]

Mill Wheel said:

PtCoJ not as serious as it once was?

2014 stats (latest I could find quickly) for perverting the course of public justice. Male offender age 18-20 pleading guilty.

Discharge - 2%
Fine - 0
Community sentence - 18%
Suspended sentence - 46%
Immediate custody - 34%

Looks like the most common outcome. What's your point?

[anonymous-user]

Huhne pleaded 'not guilty', too, which means he wouldn't receive any potential 'guilty plea' discount.

[Red Devil]

Mill Wheel said:

At 19 he will not have held his license for two years, so 6 points could have seen him banned - he was given 5 points.

Wrong. A new driver on 6 points does not get banned. His/her D/L licence is revoked.
He/she has to apply for a new provisional and resit both parts of the test.
http://www.2pass.co.uk/retest.htm#.WVPP6ITyuM8

So the length of the 'sentence' is effectively indeterminate.
It depends on how quickly the new licence can be obtained and how soon a test can be booked.

[Cooperman]

One might wonder why attempting to avoid a motoring conviction by lying is 'Perverting.....' , buy lying to try to avoid conviction for serious offences is not.

For example, a person arrested for a serious assault my well deny it ("It wasn't me, I wasn't there, you have the wrong person, etc") during initial interview, but then make a 'guilty' statement when the CCTV or other evidence comes to light buy is not charged with both the offence and Attempting to Pervert ........., just charged with the original offence . Why is this? Maybe it's because the charge against such drivers should be "Attempting to Prevent the Collection of the Cash".

[jm doc]

Cooperman said:

One might wonder why attempting to avoid a motoring conviction by lying is 'Perverting.....' , buy lying to try to avoid conviction for serious offences is not.

For example, a person arrested for a serious assault my well deny it ("It wasn't me, I wasn't there, you have the wrong person, etc") during initial interview, but then make a 'guilty' statement when the CCTV or other evidence comes to light buy is not charged with both the offence and Attempting to Pervert ........., just charged with the original offence . Why is this? Maybe it's because the charge against such drivers should be "Attempting to Prevent the Collection of the Cash".

Never quite understood this myself.

I'm sure someone will be along shortly to explain. Probably something to do with speeding being a criminal offence, but not actually treated as a criminal offence so that they can persuade the European court that it's only a traffic "regulation" and therefore a S172 doesn't breach your right to silence etc etc.

[vonhosen]

jm doc said:

Cooperman said:

One might wonder why attempting to avoid a motoring conviction by lying is 'Perverting.....' , buy lying to try to avoid conviction for serious offences is not.

For example, a person arrested for a serious assault my well deny it ("It wasn't me, I wasn't there, you have the wrong person, etc") during initial interview, but then make a 'guilty' statement when the CCTV or other evidence comes to light buy is not charged with both the offence and Attempting to Pervert ........., just charged with the original offence . Why is this? Maybe it's because the charge against such drivers should be "Attempting to Prevent the Collection of the Cash".

Never quite understood this myself.

I'm sure someone will be along shortly to explain. Probably something to do with speeding being a criminal offence, but not actually treated as a criminal offence so that they can persuade the European court that it's only a traffic "regulation" and therefore a S172 doesn't breach your right to silence etc etc.

Perverting the course of justice is more than simply telling an untruth ('it wasn't me').
You've got to go further by for instance involving/conspiring with others or creating/manufacturing a web of deceit designed to mislead & support the untruth.

[jm doc]

vonhosen said:

jm doc said:

Cooperman said:

One might wonder why attempting to avoid a motoring conviction by lying is 'Perverting.....' , buy lying to try to avoid conviction for serious offences is not.

For example, a person arrested for a serious assault my well deny it ("It wasn't me, I wasn't there, you have the wrong person, etc") during initial interview, but then make a 'guilty' statement when the CCTV or other evidence comes to light buy is not charged with both the offence and Attempting to Pervert ........., just charged with the original offence . Why is this? Maybe it's because the charge against such drivers should be "Attempting to Prevent the Collection of the Cash".

Never quite understood this myself.

I'm sure someone will be along shortly to explain. Probably something to do with speeding being a criminal offence, but not actually treated as a criminal offence so that they can persuade the European court that it's only a traffic "regulation" and therefore a S172 doesn't breach your right to silence etc etc.

Perverting the course of justice is more than simply telling an untruth ('it wasn't me').
You've got to go further by for instance involving/conspiring with others or creating/manufacturing a web of deceit designed to mislead & support the untruth.

Thought you might be along.....

[Mill Wheel]

agtlaw said:

Mill Wheel said:

PtCoJ not as serious as it once was?

2014 stats (latest I could find quickly) for perverting the course of public justice. Male offender age 18-20 pleading guilty.

Discharge - 2%
Fine - 0
Community sentence - 18%
Suspended sentence - 46%
Immediate custody - 34%

Looks like the most common outcome. What's your point?

I'm just surprised that with his excess speed and PtCoJ he appears to have got off lightly - given we were told that from April 24th there was going to be a crackdown on excessive speed, with drivers being fined "thousands of pounds" for the most serious offending.
I think 76 mph through Ings qualifies for the 150% of the weekly wage, without the PtCoJ on top.

[agtlaw]

Mill Wheel said:

agtlaw said:

Mill Wheel said:

PtCoJ not as serious as it once was?

2014 stats (latest I could find quickly) for perverting the course of public justice. Male offender age 18-20 pleading guilty.

Discharge - 2%
Fine - 0
Community sentence - 18%
Suspended sentence - 46%
Immediate custody - 34%

Looks like the most common outcome. What's your point?

I'm just surprised that with his excess speed and PtCoJ he appears to have got off lightly - given we were told that from April 24th there was going to be a crackdown on excessive speed, with drivers being fined "thousands of pounds" for the most serious offending.
I think 76 mph through Ings qualifies for the 150% of the weekly wage, without the PtCoJ on top.

He didn't "get off lightly." There wasn't a fine. He got a bender and is doing a reasonable amount of community service (as it used to be known). This is a thread about a case which is in no way out of the ordinary.

[Cooperman]

jm doc said:

Thought you might be along.....

So if an alleged burglar 'manufactures' a false alibi and claims to have been somewhere else at the time and, maybe, produces some false evidence which is later shown to be false, is that not attempting to pervert the course of justice?

It must be a very subtle difference as it is not obvious.

[jm doc]

Cooperman said:

jm doc said:

Thought you might be along.....

So if an alleged burglar 'manufactures' a false alibi and claims to have been somewhere else at the time and, maybe, produces some false evidence which is later shown to be false, is that not attempting to pervert the course of justice?

It must be a very subtle difference as it is not obvious.

I agree, absolutely. Same thing, but surprise surprise, Von doesn't. He also ducked the point about the European court being conned into believing and S172 is about a simple regulatory matter, but it can carry a 20 year jail sentence if you get it wrong.....

[vonhosen]

Cooperman said:

jm doc said:

Thought you might be along.....

So if an alleged burglar 'manufactures' a false alibi and claims to have been somewhere else at the time and, maybe, produces some false evidence which is later shown to be false, is that not attempting to pervert the course of justice?

It must be a very subtle difference as it is not obvious.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/public_justice_offences_incorporating_the_charging_standard/#a03

Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 29th June 22:18

[vonhosen]

jm doc said:

Cooperman said:

jm doc said:

Thought you might be along.....

So if an alleged burglar 'manufactures' a false alibi and claims to have been somewhere else at the time and, maybe, produces some false evidence which is later shown to be false, is that not attempting to pervert the course of justice?

It must be a very subtle difference as it is not obvious.

I agree, absolutely. Same thing, but surprise surprise, Von doesn't. He also ducked the point about the European court being conned into believing and S172 is about a simple regulatory matter, but it can carry a 20 year jail sentence if you get it wrong.....

I didn't duck anything.
The European Court wasn't conned, they were not misled & were quite aware of all the circumstances.
Just because the verdict isn't one you are happy with doesn't mean they were conned, that's an insult on them.

Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 29th June 22:21