Eight months for using a laser jammer ?!! Wtf

[cmaguire]

Roman Rhodes said:

cmaguire said:

The issue here is that many do not consider PCoJ an appropriate response. You and others want to focus entirely on the PCoJ, whereas those that don't agree with the use of PCoJ draw attention to the original offence.

That’s just plain wrong. PCoJ was not a “response” it was the crime committed. How many times does this have to be said? What “original offence” are you claiming was committed and he should have been prosecuted for?

In simple terms he tried to get away with speeding.
And that is exactly how many will view his offence.

[Greendubber]

JNW1 said:

Greendubber said:

JNW1 said:

Greendubber said:

cmaguire said:

Greendubber said:

Criminal damage is a lesser offence than PCOJ and people are happy for that to be ignored, so why should the police investigate your car being vandalised?

The issue here is that many do not consider PCoJ an appropriate response. You and others want to focus entirely on the PCoJ, whereas those that don't agree with the use of PCoJ draw attention to the original offence.
This all stems from the political actions of the authorities, whereby they are massively over-exaggerating the importance and effect of speeding, and by actively encouraging and facilitating the reduction of many limits as well they are seen to be using their power to force their agenda. An agenda many view as totally illogical and unreasonable.
A lack of respect for the limits is the result, and from there also a lack of respect for the enforcement of those limits. Trying to avoid being punished for something you perceive as unreasonable is then not a huge leap or difficult to understand.
Personally I see the whole anti-speed machine as a political exercise that just inconveniences millions for no good reason. In the last 20 years or so my respect for the limits has changed massively because so many of them are now laughably slow.

You and some others need to ignore the speeding offence, it's irrelevant to the PCOJ. It doesn't matter what the original offence was as far as the law is concerned, it's seperate.

You may not agree with it, that's fine but plenty of people on here don't have an issue with it and this guy was convicted fair and square. It really is a bit of a zero event! Stupid bloke gets caught doing something utterly stupid.

I think what many from a non-law enforcement background struggle to get their heads around is how an attempt to avoid something trivial can become such a serious offence. I suspect many would think sending someone to prison for seeking to avoid a speeding ticket is completely disproportionate, especially when others who commit crimes against individuals and/or property often escape with non-custodial sentences.

Now I know the response will be "ah, but seeking to avoid the speeding conviction was PCOJ and that's very serious don't you know" but, in all honestly, a large proportion of the public would say that's nonsense in a situation like this and that you ought to view it in the context of the original offence. I'm not defending the bloke who got put away - as you say, a stupid bloke caught doing something stupid - but detaining him at Her Majesty's pleasure doesn't feel like a proportionate response and seems a total waste of taxpayer money to me; wouldn't two or three hundred hours of community service have made more sense? Just seems the authorities are determined to make a point with anything to do with speeding which once again begs the question whether they've got their priorities right.....

It wouldnt matter if it wasn't a speeding offence, it would still be treated the same. It's not a war on speeding motorists.

So a prison sentence for seeking to avoid a speeding conviction is a proportionate response in your view and represents a sensible solution for the taxpayer?

Good grief....

IGNORE THE SPEEDING OFFENCE!!!!

"Perverting the course of justice is an offence committed when a person prevents justice from being served on him/herself or on another party. In England and Wales it is a common law offence, carrying a maximum sentence of life imprisonment."

It doesn't matter if it's speeding, burglary, fraud etc. Stop getting hung up on the speeding!

[Greendubber]

cmaguire said:

Roman Rhodes said:

cmaguire said:

The issue here is that many do not consider PCoJ an appropriate response. You and others want to focus entirely on the PCoJ, whereas those that don't agree with the use of PCoJ draw attention to the original offence.

That’s just plain wrong. PCoJ was not a “response” it was the crime committed. How many times does this have to be said? What “original offence” are you claiming was committed and he should have been prosecuted for?

In simple terms he tried to get away with speeding.
And that is exactly how many will incorrectly view his offence.

Fixed that.

[cmaguire]

JNW1 said:

I think what many from a non-law enforcement background struggle to get their heads around is how an attempt to avoid something trivial can become such a serious offence. I suspect many would think sending someone to prison for seeking to avoid a speeding ticket is completely disproportionate, especially when others who commit crimes against individuals and/or property often escape with non-custodial sentences.

Now I know the response will be "ah, but seeking to avoid the speeding conviction was PCOJ and that's very serious don't you know" but, in all honestly, a large proportion of the public would say that's nonsense in a situation like this and that you ought to view it in the context of the original offence. I'm not defending the bloke who got put away - as you say, a stupid bloke caught doing something stupid - but detaining him at Her Majesty's pleasure doesn't feel like a proportionate response and seems a total waste of taxpayer money to me; wouldn't two or three hundred hours of community service have made more sense? Just seems the authorities are determined to make a point with anything to do with speeding which once again begs the question whether they've got their priorities right.....

Sounds about right

[vonhosen]

JNW1 said:

So a prison sentence for seeking to avoid a speeding conviction is a proportionate response in your view and represents a sensible solution for the taxpayer?

We know there is a risk of prison for perverting the course of justice from attempting to frustrate justice in relation to any original offence.
We know there have been people imprisoned for perverting the course of justice resulting from all manner of original offences including traffic matters.
The authorities do not wanting anyone perverting the course of justice, so it's a serious offence with heavy penalties

You have the choice, you don't have to gamble.
You roll the dice at your own peril.

[JNW1]

Roman Rhodes said:

JNW1 said:

Now I know the response will be "ah, but seeking to avoid the speeding conviction was PCOJ and that's very serious don't you know" but, in all honestly, a large proportion of the public would say that's nonsense in a situation like this and that you ought to view it in the context of the original offence.

So if I get prosecuted for dropping a bit of litter and a witness is asked to appear for the prosecution it’s OK if I send my mates round to threaten to burn their house down unless they withdraw? After all, the “original offence” is minor isn’t it?

And I see those are two quite separate things albeit not a great example (after all, how many people a year get prosecuted for dropping litter and are only convicted in court with the help of evidence from a witness?!).

However, to come back to our original subject, perhaps a different way of looking at it is what course of justice was actually being perverted; if justice had taken its proper course would it have mattered or would it have been of little or no consequence either way? I'd say the latter in which case I don't see a prison sentence was a proportionate response.

[andy_s]

JNW1 said:

So a prison sentence for seeking to avoid a speeding conviction is a proportionate response in your view and represents a sensible solution for the taxpayer?

Yup, because he'll only serve about 8 weeks before he's out on licence. Please stop drama queening.

[cmaguire]

We are back to a victimless crime again.
No great surprise as that is exactly what it is.

[cmaguire]

To pervert the course of justice would imply that there is justice there to be perverted in the first place.

[andy_s]

cmaguire said:

To pervert the course of justice would imply that there is justice there to be perverted in the first place.

So what he did was OK then, and anyone should be able to do it?

[LetsTryAgain]

How it can be in the publics interest for this man to spend 4 months in jail is beyond me.

[cmaguire]

andy_s said:

cmaguire said:

To pervert the course of justice would imply that there is justice there to be perverted in the first place.

So what he did was OK then, and anyone should be able to do it?

Proportionality please.
And that isn't the case.

An example for you.
Previous 60 limit, now a 40 for reasons only Mystic Meg knows. Driver with jammer is checked by a laser gun. He is doing 60 but they fail to get a reading (no middle finger nonsense from the driver). This happens twice and Plod pop in for a cup of tea. Part of the jammer is still on the vehicle, he has removed the rest, and he denies knowledge of everything.

PCoJ and prison?
Or a few more points and a bigger fine than somebody caught twice ?

[roachcoach]

Greendubber said:

Good grief....

IGNORE THE SPEEDING OFFENCE!!!!

"Perverting the course of justice is an offence committed when a person prevents justice from being served on him/herself or on another party. In England and Wales it is a common law offence, carrying a maximum sentence of life imprisonment."

It doesn't matter if it's speeding, burglary, fraud etc. Stop getting hung up on the speeding!

I think people are getting hung up on it as it seems on the face of it, an overreaction/inappropriate charge in the circumstance. Much like the barber convicted of ABH for a haircut of a teen - contrast haircut vs being hit with a hammer both have been done as ABH. The charge seems OTT to many people.

Sledgehammer to crack a nut, if you will.

That being said (as I've already posted) with stuff like this, you're going to have the proverbial book, desk, chair and anything else to hand flung at you and the fool has no-one to blame but himself.

It's a bit like punching the queen and expecting to have the same punishment as punching Bob down the pub - that's not how it works in this country and you don't have to like it but that is the reality.

[LetsTryAgain]

roachcoach said:

That being said (as I've already posted) with stuff like this, you're going to have the proverbial book, desk, chair and anything else to hand flung at you and the fool has no-one to blame but himself.

It's a bit like punching the queen and expecting to have the same punishment as punching Bob down the pub - that's not how it works in this country and you don't have to like it but that is the reality.

You're right there.
Or that imbecile Prescott punching someone for having an egg thrown at him.

[warch]

If you let people get away with lying under oath and/or showing contempt for court then our entire legal system breaks down. So people demonstrably doing either even in respect of minor offences can receive custodial sentences. A friend of mine was recently cleared of a public order offence, having been attacked by his next door neighbour. The neighbour's mother was threatened with a charge of contempt of court for repeatedly rolling her eyes as the judge was delivering his verdict.

This isn't an attack on motorists or evidence of a police state, it's been that way for decades. Basically don't lie about anything, don't attempt to conceal evidence and don't show contempt for the judicial process especially for a fairly minor offence like speeding.

[cmaguire]

Nice theory, but the attitude the State is promoting with regard to speeding deserves plenty of contempt.

[andy_s]

cmaguire said:

Nice theory, but the attitude the State is promoting with regard to speeding deserves plenty of contempt.

And what do you think about the State's attitude to PCoJ?

[anonymous-user]

cmaguire said:

Roman Rhodes said:

cmaguire said:

The issue here is that many do not consider PCoJ an appropriate response. You and others want to focus entirely on the PCoJ, whereas those that don't agree with the use of PCoJ draw attention to the original offence.

That’s just plain wrong. PCoJ was not a “response” it was the crime committed. How many times does this have to be said? What “original offence” are you claiming was committed and he should have been prosecuted for?

In simple terms he tried to get away with speeding.
And that is exactly how many will view his offence.

How do you know he was speeding? The “original offence” was PCoJ.

Just because you (and “many”) don’t understand what happened isn’t a good reason not to prosecute.

[vonhosen]

cmaguire said:

Nice theory, but the attitude the State is promoting with regard to speeding deserves plenty of contempt.

You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it, you can fight against it. Lawfully that is.

[Boosted LS1]

Roman Rhodes said:

Boosted LS1 said:

^ Who says his views are in the minority? Are you qualified?

It's funny that we never see education being promoted.

Just IMO having read the thread.

Don’t people get offered speed awareness courses?

Yes they have to pay to be lectured by ex cops making a fast buck. We still lose.