PtCoJ not as serious as it once was?
Discussion
So do burglars, rapists, fraudsters, etc., not often conspire to create a web of deceit, lies and sign false statements when denying any alleged offence?
However, when charged as a result of 'further and better evidence', maybe from CCTV, DNA or whatever, they are always only charged with the basic offence, even though that might carry a lesser punishment than ATPTCOJ.
Why are drivers charged both with the original alleged offence plus ATPTCOJ?
It just seems rather odd and inconsistent.
However, when charged as a result of 'further and better evidence', maybe from CCTV, DNA or whatever, they are always only charged with the basic offence, even though that might carry a lesser punishment than ATPTCOJ.
Why are drivers charged both with the original alleged offence plus ATPTCOJ?
It just seems rather odd and inconsistent.
Cooperman said:
So do burglars, rapists, fraudsters, etc., not often conspire to create a web of deceit, lies and sign false statements when denying any alleged offence?
However, when charged as a result of 'further and better evidence', maybe from CCTV, DNA or whatever, they are always only charged with the basic offence, even though that might carry a lesser punishment than ATPTCOJ.
Why are drivers charged both with the original alleged offence plus ATPTCOJ?
It just seems rather odd and inconsistent.
Did you read the link I provided?However, when charged as a result of 'further and better evidence', maybe from CCTV, DNA or whatever, they are always only charged with the basic offence, even though that might carry a lesser punishment than ATPTCOJ.
Why are drivers charged both with the original alleged offence plus ATPTCOJ?
It just seems rather odd and inconsistent.
It is a very long document so, no, I didn't read it all.
I still can't see why a burglar, rapist, thug or whatever, can lie, sign false statements, deny involvement and make up false alibis and still only face the basic charge, but when a driver does the same he/she is liable to be charged for PTCOJ.
Presumably, and feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken (IANAL) it is to do with the removal of the age-old right not to have to incriminate oneself in certain alleged RTA offences. I guess that says it all really. Many have never thought this was right, but it has become law so we'll have to accept it as an erosion of our old basic rights going back quite a long time.
It has gone from "You are not obliged to say anything....." to "It is believed an offence has been committed and unless you either confess, or give us the name of someone who will confess, you will be charged with failure to supply information and, if found guilty will be penalised at twice the penalty of that which you would have received if you had confessed. You do not have the right to remain silent".
Looked at dispassionately, this is nothing but procuring convictions by threats, but all dressed up in legalese jargon to make it seem OK.
I still can't see why a burglar, rapist, thug or whatever, can lie, sign false statements, deny involvement and make up false alibis and still only face the basic charge, but when a driver does the same he/she is liable to be charged for PTCOJ.
Presumably, and feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken (IANAL) it is to do with the removal of the age-old right not to have to incriminate oneself in certain alleged RTA offences. I guess that says it all really. Many have never thought this was right, but it has become law so we'll have to accept it as an erosion of our old basic rights going back quite a long time.
It has gone from "You are not obliged to say anything....." to "It is believed an offence has been committed and unless you either confess, or give us the name of someone who will confess, you will be charged with failure to supply information and, if found guilty will be penalised at twice the penalty of that which you would have received if you had confessed. You do not have the right to remain silent".
Looked at dispassionately, this is nothing but procuring convictions by threats, but all dressed up in legalese jargon to make it seem OK.
Cooperman said:
It is a very long document so, no, I didn't read it all.
I still can't see why a burglar, rapist, thug or whatever, can lie, sign false statements, deny involvement and make up false alibis and still only face the basic charge, but when a driver does the same he/she is liable to be charged for PTCOJ.
Presumably, and feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken (IANAL) it is to do with the removal of the age-old right not to have to incriminate oneself in certain alleged RTA offences. I guess that says it all really. Many have never thought this was right, but it has become law so we'll have to accept it as an erosion of our old basic rights going back quite a long time.
It has gone from "You are not obliged to say anything....." to "It is believed an offence has been committed and unless you either confess, or give us the name of someone who will confess, you will be charged with failure to supply information and, if found guilty will be penalised at twice the penalty of that which you would have received if you had confessed. You do not have the right to remain silent".
Looked at dispassionately, this is nothing but procuring convictions by threats, but all dressed up in legalese jargon to make it seem OK.
It's nothing to do with that, the document explains it for you.I still can't see why a burglar, rapist, thug or whatever, can lie, sign false statements, deny involvement and make up false alibis and still only face the basic charge, but when a driver does the same he/she is liable to be charged for PTCOJ.
Presumably, and feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken (IANAL) it is to do with the removal of the age-old right not to have to incriminate oneself in certain alleged RTA offences. I guess that says it all really. Many have never thought this was right, but it has become law so we'll have to accept it as an erosion of our old basic rights going back quite a long time.
It has gone from "You are not obliged to say anything....." to "It is believed an offence has been committed and unless you either confess, or give us the name of someone who will confess, you will be charged with failure to supply information and, if found guilty will be penalised at twice the penalty of that which you would have received if you had confessed. You do not have the right to remain silent".
Looked at dispassionately, this is nothing but procuring convictions by threats, but all dressed up in legalese jargon to make it seem OK.
If you want to know read it, if you want to remain under your mishaprehension because it suits your world view then don't bother reading it.
Cooperman said:
It is a very long document so, no, I didn't read it all.
I still can't see why a burglar, rapist, thug or whatever, can lie, sign false statements, deny involvement and make up false alibis and still only face the basic charge, but when a driver does the same he/she is liable to be charged for PTCOJ.
Presumably, and feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken (IANAL) it is to do with the removal of the age-old right not to have to incriminate oneself in certain alleged RTA offences. I guess that says it all really. Many have never thought this was right, but it has become law so we'll have to accept it as an erosion of our old basic rights going back quite a long time.
It has gone from "You are not obliged to say anything....." to "It is believed an offence has been committed and unless you either confess, or give us the name of someone who will confess, you will be charged with failure to supply information and, if found guilty will be penalised at twice the penalty of that which you would have received if you had confessed. You do not have the right to remain silent".
Looked at dispassionately, this is nothing but procuring convictions by threats, but all dressed up in legalese jargon to make it seem OK.
This requirement has been around since 1930. It's hardly new.I still can't see why a burglar, rapist, thug or whatever, can lie, sign false statements, deny involvement and make up false alibis and still only face the basic charge, but when a driver does the same he/she is liable to be charged for PTCOJ.
Presumably, and feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken (IANAL) it is to do with the removal of the age-old right not to have to incriminate oneself in certain alleged RTA offences. I guess that says it all really. Many have never thought this was right, but it has become law so we'll have to accept it as an erosion of our old basic rights going back quite a long time.
It has gone from "You are not obliged to say anything....." to "It is believed an offence has been committed and unless you either confess, or give us the name of someone who will confess, you will be charged with failure to supply information and, if found guilty will be penalised at twice the penalty of that which you would have received if you had confessed. You do not have the right to remain silent".
Looked at dispassionately, this is nothing but procuring convictions by threats, but all dressed up in legalese jargon to make it seem OK.
Cooperman said:
I still can't see why a burglar, rapist, thug or whatever, can lie, sign false statements, deny involvement and make up false alibis and still only face the basic charge, but when a driver does the same he/she is liable to be charged for PTCOJ.
I know this is going to be one of those really inconvenient things that people call "facts", but you know that this is NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the fact he was driving, right?It's just that most people only ever come into contact with the justice system through driving offences...
vonhosen said:
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.
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
jm doc said:
vonhosen said:
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.
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
Where have you plucked a mythicall 20 year sentence from?
vonhosen said:
Failing to comply with 172 isn't PCoJ, it's failing to comply with 172.
Where have you plucked a mythicall 20 year sentence from?
I think Cooperman above dealt with the injustice of failure to comply. I'm referring to the fact that if you nominate someone else then you can be charged with PCoJ and the penalty can be up to 20 years (or thereabouts I think). I don't believe this was considered by the European Court because they were led to believe S172 was just to do with the regulation of car usage, and that's what they said in their verdict (although it wasn't a unanimous verdict, so some of them clearly saw the risks). Where have you plucked a mythicall 20 year sentence from?
And lets say I'd just burgled someone's house and the police suspect me as someone matching my description was seen there. If I was directly asked (in court under oath for example) and said it wasn't me it was Vonhosen, I would never be prosecuted for PCoJ would I?
Edited to add, unless you were making the decision.
Edited by jm doc on Saturday 1st July 13:04
TooMany2cvs said:
jm doc said:
...then you can be charged with PCoJ and the penalty can be up to 20 years (or thereabouts I think).
The maximum for PCoJ is life.The actual sentence will always be in proportion to the offence you're trying to avoid. So 20yrs for a speeding ticket? Don't be daft.
jm doc said:
TooMany2cvs said:
jm doc said:
...then you can be charged with PCoJ and the penalty can be up to 20 years (or thereabouts I think).
The maximum for PCoJ is life.The actual sentence will always be in proportion to the offence you're trying to avoid. So 20yrs for a speeding ticket? Don't be daft.
Identifying yourself as the driver of a vehicle doesn't make you guilty of an offence.
I've had a 172 served on me & I've replied identifying myself as the driver. It doesn't mean I'm guilty of any offence (I wasn't summonsed or charged with any offence as a result of identifying myself). If I were guilty of an offence it wouldn't have been because of 172.
Driving is a regulated activity, you aren't allowed to drive legally on the roads without being subject to those regulations.
If you don't want to be subject of those regulations then you aren't permitted to drive on the roads, it's part & parcel of the contract. We aren't free to drive unregulated on the roads.
jm doc said:
vonhosen said:
Failing to comply with 172 isn't PCoJ, it's failing to comply with 172.
Where have you plucked a mythicall 20 year sentence from?
I think Cooperman above dealt with the injustice of failure to comply. I'm referring to the fact that if you nominate someone else then you can be charged with PCoJ and the penalty can be up to 20 years (or thereabouts I think). I don't believe this was considered by the European Court because they were led to believe S172 was just to do with the regulation of car usage, and that's what they said in their verdict (although it wasn't a unanimous verdict, so some of them clearly saw the risks). Where have you plucked a mythicall 20 year sentence from?
And lets say I'd just burgled someone's house and the police suspect me as someone matching my description was seen there. If I was directly asked (in court under oath for example) and said it wasn't me it was Vonhosen, I would never be prosecuted for PCoJ would I?
Edited to add, unless you were making the decision.
Perverting the course of justice includes acts that may mean somebody else is found guilty of your crime. 'You' are using the regulatory instrument to avoid justice for yourself & affect another. "You' are knowingly engaging it that.
s172 is regulatory. Your duty is to give information who is driving the regulated vehicle that you are the keeper of.
Your perversion of justice isn't the fault of 172, it's benign. The perversion is yours.
The ECHR couldn't be a asked to consider 172 in light that you might pervert the course of justice because it legitimately exists. that'd indeed be perverse. Perhaps the ECHR should rule that you shouldn't have to fill a tax return lest you then be guilty of fraud to avoid paying your taxes.
Perverting the course of justice carries a maximum life sentence. 20 years has nothing to do with it.
What is the typical range of sentences actually given out for perverting the course of justice though?
With the answer in mind look at rape/burglary sentences & read the CPS link I provided earlier.
When you did the burglary, got caught & said you didn't do it but you think vonhosen did, you simply lied. That isn't perverting the course of justice.
If you'd gone further & say planted evidence getting your brother to deflect from you to innocent me then it would be.
If you get a 172 & say you don't know who was driving (when you do) you've lied, but that's not perverting the course of justice. If you & your brother implicate innocent me using the regulatory instrument you both could be.
Perverting the course isn't a lie. But it is you creating/using a construct to implicate an innocent for your crime.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 1st July 15:24
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff