Policeman accused of 11 speeding offences

[Sgt Bilko]

Random question, who can use “exemptions” if they have received the appropriate training? If the vehicle doesn’t matter as what some posters have said. Eg imaginary scenario what if a PCSO who left traffic the week before as an advanced driver goes winding down the A1 at warp speed assuming there was a legitimate purpose?

What about non police employees driving police vehicles after being trained to CoP levels? Or non police driving blue light equipped vehicles after being trained but for policing purposes? What are “policing purposes” and who do they relate to?

[Graveworm]

Sgt Bilko said:

Random question, who can use “exemptions” if they have received the appropriate training? If the vehicle doesn’t matter as what some posters have said. Eg imaginary scenario what if a PCSO who left traffic the week before as an advanced driver goes winding down the A1 at warp speed assuming there was a legitimate purpose?

What about non police employees driving police vehicles after being trained to CoP levels? Or non police driving blue light equipped vehicles after being trained but for policing purposes? What are “policing purposes” and who do they relate to?

Policing is not the same as law enforcement, so I am pretty sure the legitimate purpose would need to be directly linked to a Police force (Or other specified body). But it definitely doesn't need to be a sworn officer/constable driving. It's another area, where courts may take a different view to the internal rules and apply the letter of the law.

Edited by Graveworm on Saturday 7th December 10:58

[ging84]

I wonder if a pizza delivery drive taking food to the police station can claim the exemption.
Traditionally they worked for the pizza company, but with the modern tech companies they are sometimes, in theory anyway, independent contractors taking 1 off jobs directly for the customer.

[Derek Smith]

There was an argument over whether or not the legal obligations placed on a police officer override any restrictions.

The argument came up about failure to conform to the direction given by a traffic sign. The police officer’s defence was that there was a requirement place on him by the nature of his job. If he failed to act when someone’s life was put at risk, he could be charged with malfeasance. In the specific case, there was a call to someone being attacked with a knife.

The PC stated that he could see clearly and there was no danger when he went against the directions of the sign; he was adamant that he did not ignore it.

There was a legal nicety brought up, presumably via the chap’s brief, that he was in a situation where he had no option but to break the law. It was merely a decision of which to break. In such cases it makes a prosecution difficult. I have no idea of the legal problem, just reporting what I was told. I assumed there was more to it than that, presumably speed.

The particular force, presumably after assistance from the CPS, decided not to proceed. The rumour was, although probably without foundation other than it being almost certain, that the force did not want to establish a precedent that would give carte blanche to officers to drive how they liked.

[Graveworm]

Derek Smith said:

There was an argument over whether or not the legal obligations placed on a police officer override any restrictions.

The argument came up about failure to conform to the direction given by a traffic sign. The police officer’s defence was that there was a requirement place on him by the nature of his job. If he failed to act when someone’s life was put at risk, he could be charged with malfeasance. In the specific case, there was a call to someone being attacked with a knife.

The PC stated that he could see clearly and there was no danger when he went against the directions of the sign; he was adamant that he did not ignore it.

There was a legal nicety brought up, presumably via the chap’s brief, that he was in a situation where he had no option but to break the law. It was merely a decision of which to break. In such cases it makes a prosecution difficult. I have no idea of the legal problem, just reporting what I was told. I assumed there was more to it than that, presumably speed.

The particular force, presumably after assistance from the CPS, decided not to proceed. The rumour was, although probably without foundation other than it being almost certain, that the force did not want to establish a precedent that would give carte blanche to officers to drive how they liked.

The CPS published guidelines are "Our starting point is that it is very unlikely to be appropriate to proceed with a prosecution on public interest grounds if a police officer, member of ambulance staff or fire fighter commits a driving offence while responding to an emergency call."

In any event nearly all, (All??) traffic signs contain a Police purpose exemption in the specific TRO, TMO etc that created the restriction.

Edited by Graveworm on Saturday 7th December 13:17

[Sgt Bilko]

Graveworm said:

Sgt Bilko said:

Random question, who can use “exemptions” if they have received the appropriate training? If the vehicle doesn’t matter as what some posters have said. Eg imaginary scenario what if a PCSO who left traffic the week before as an advanced driver goes winding down the A1 at warp speed assuming there was a legitimate purpose?

What about non police employees driving police vehicles after being trained to CoP levels? Or non police driving blue light equipped vehicles after being trained but for policing purposes? What are “policing purposes” and who do they relate to?

Policing is not the same as law enforcement, so I am pretty sure the legitimate purpose would need to be directly linked to a Police force (Or other specified body). But it definitely doesn't need to be a sworn officer/constable driving. It's another area, where courts may take a different view to the internal rules and apply the letter of the law.

Edited by Graveworm on Saturday 7th December 10:58

That's interesting thanks. So what's considered to be a "policing purpose" then? You may gather that I'm interested in the paraellels between police and other agencies who do exactly the same function e.g. crimes in action, public protection, surveillance, arrests and intercepts.

[Derek Smith]

Graveworm said:

The CPS published guidelines are "Our starting point is that it is very unlikely to be appropriate to proceed with a prosecution on public interest grounds if a police officer, member of ambulance staff or fire fighter commits a driving offence while responding to an emergency call."

So why the pressure on the guy (I presume it was a bloke)? (What is the point of rhetorical questions?) There must have been some other factor.

We, a group of retired bobbies, were told this in a chat from a serving police officer in response to how times have changed since he started, and since we'd left.

[Graveworm]

Sgt Bilko said:

That's interesting thanks. So what's considered to be a "policing purpose" then? You may gather that I'm interested in the paraellels between police and other agencies who do exactly the same function e.g. crimes in action, public protection, surveillance, arrests and intercepts.

The other agencies are pretty much also covered NCA specifically others under a MACP. Policing purpose is pretty wide, definitely it has included collecting keys, being late for court, getting a minister to an appointment.
It was recently defined officially for other reasons as:
Protecting life and property, preserving order, preventing the commission of offences, bringing offenders to justice and any duty of responsibility of the police arising from statute or common law.

Edited by Graveworm on Saturday 7th December 11:41

[Sgt Bilko]

Graveworm said:

Sgt Bilko said:

That's interesting thanks. So what's considered to be a "policing purpose" then? You may gather that I'm interested in the paraellels between police and other agencies who do exactly the same function e.g. crimes in action, public protection, surveillance, arrests and intercepts.

The other agencies are pretty much also covered NCA specifically others under a MACP. Policing purpose is pretty wide, definitely it has included collecting keys, being late for court, getting a minister to an appointment.
It was recently defined officially for other reasons as:
Protecting life and property, preserving order, preventing the commission of offences, bringing offenders to justice and any duty of responsibility of the police arising from statute or common law.

Edited by Graveworm on Saturday 7th December 11:41

Thanks for this. Sadly a lot of agencies have been informed they aren't covered now and the hold-up of the implementation of some legislative changes has caused significant issues. CoP are being particularly awkward about it despite said agencies (with PACE powers and bringing offenders to justice) conducting a policing purpose. Purely as an example, the new GLAA.

But we are heading to a thread drift here. Thanks for the replies :-)

[XCP]

Gone are the days when one could jump on a bus and tell the driver 'get me to the centre ASAP' in response to an urgent assistance call. Shame.

Used to be a point of honour for the walkers to respond as best they could. Kudos for arriving in a totally unsuitable vehicle.One chap in Bristol turned up in a fire engine.( not driving it!)

[Rushjob]

XCP said:

Gone are the days when one could jump on a bus and tell the driver 'get me to the centre ASAP' in response to an urgent assistance call. Shame.

Used to be a point of honour for the walkers to respond as best they could. Kudos for arriving in a totally unsuitable vehicle.One chap in Bristol turned up in a fire engine.( not driving it!)

My best one was on the back of a Vespa! OK it was ridden by the Custody Sgt who was just leaving the nick at the end of his shift but I rolled up to the melee on the pillion of a Vespa , sadly my crown only lasted about 3 weeks till someone else turned up to an assistance call on a tractor ( local parks one! )

[Derek Smith]

XCP said:

Gone are the days when one could jump on a bus and tell the driver 'get me to the centre ASAP' in response to an urgent assistance call. Shame.

Used to be a point of honour for the walkers to respond as best they could. Kudos for arriving in a totally unsuitable vehicle.One chap in Bristol turned up in a fire engine.( not driving it!)

It was often quicker to run in the City. It was easy enough to keep up with traffic. A taxi would often stop and offer, but if the call was nearby, it would have taken more time. I once jumped over the central guard rail on my way to a call in the 'fur beats'. My trailing leg caught on the top and I did a sort of forward roll onto the road. I regained my feet all in one move and some pedestrians applauded. I felt a bow was called for. I hurt my shoulder, but you don't want to show out.

Not sure what a tractor is.

[Bigends]

Two of us hitched a lift in a dustbin lorry to a firearms incident - binmen loved it and hung around to watch. Shots were fired - only blanks fortunately - pre-firearms unit days