111/30 - dangerous driving?

[agtlaw]

"A man has allegedly been caught driving at 111 miles per hour in a 30mph area in his Porsche.

[Mr O], 24, who had two passengers, is charged with dangerous driving based on speed alone."

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/c...

Dangerous - or something else?

[SK425]

agtlaw said:

"A man has allegedly been caught driving at 111 miles per hour in a 30mph area in his Porsche.

[Mr O], 24, who had two passengers, is charged with dangerous driving based on speed alone."

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/c...

Dangerous - or something else?

Well the offence might be called "dangerous driving" but the definition of that phrase doesn't explicitly state that what you were doing had to actually be dangerous.

I've no idea about the particular road in this instance - perhaps this guy is a reckless menace who ought to be escorted to the bottom of a river and left there to think about what he's done - but on the speed alone point it is not completely inconceivable that one might be able to find a piece of 30mph limit where 111mph would not be dangerous in the "stopping in the distance you can see is clear" golden rule sense. However, I'm sure it could be argued that exceeding the limit by >80mph or >3.5 times, however you prefer to express it, falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver even if you managed to do it safely.

Edited by SK425 on Tuesday 18th March 18:44

[10 Pence Short]

A couple of thoughts...

Can both the speeding offences and dangerous driving share the same indictment if they're based on the same facts?

And how ridiculous that the magistrates feel their sentencing powers may be insufficient.

[Stoofa]

10 Pence Short said:

And how ridiculous that the magistrates feel their sentencing powers may be insufficient.

Magistrates very often do this. Generally speaking they feel that they get criticised if they sentence someone when the guy could have "got a more hefty sentence" by letting it go to crown.

I've seen many, many cases sent to crown court and the end sentence was well within the boundaries of what a magistrate could have handed down.

All it means is that a case that could be sorted takes twice as long while people faf around getting it sent higher up.

[10 Pence Short]

It's a problem with either way offences. I wonder if it would make sense to introduce some lines in the sand on these, or perhaps even bind the mags where prosecution and defence agree on jurisdiction?

I can't imagine any more than a suspended on this guy, assuming a jury would even find him guilty at all (the Menai Bridge is hardly your typical 30 limit).

[JustinP1]

Approximately 10 years ago, sat in the a mags court waiting room, I avoided the tracksuit scrotes and sat next to the only guy wearing a suit.

Waiting, we got talking and he told me that he expected his case to go to Crown Court as he was up for dangerous driving. He told me that he was clocked between 100 and 110 at approximately 5am on a deserted motorway.

The aggravating factor was that a couple of times during bends in the road he went from the inside to outside lane to minimise the distance travelled.

He was tailed for 10 miles and the police officers admitted that the road was absolutely clear, the conditions were dry and visibility perfect.

[All that jazz]

Doubt he'd even be able to do over a ton on the Menai bridge or any part of the A5 in the close vicinity for that matter. Think it's more likely to be a mistake for the A55/Britannia bridge area and iirc there is some stupid 30mph limit round that area too even though the road is straight for miles. 4am - maybe a stern telling off and some points, but 2pm? He's gonna get his arse handed to him.

[HertsBiker]

Should just say he was familiarising himself with the vehicle in the name of safety. It couldn't have been that dangerous or they would have stopped him sooner. Bet the following police loved the chance to go that fast, perk of the job!

[JulianHJ]

HertsBiker said:

Should just say he was familiarising himself with the vehicle in the name of safety. It couldn't have been that dangerous or they would have stopped him sooner. Bet the following police loved the chance to go that fast, perk of the job!

Round my way, if police officers are seen doing more than double the limit, even on the way to an emergency with blues and twos activated then they risk getting stuck on. The standard expected of police drivers is higher than the average motorist, and rightly so. Obviously if following a vehicle at those sorts of speed they'll need to be able to justify it.

Edited by JulianHJ on Wednesday 19th March 06:41

[10 Pence Short]

HertsBiker said:

Should just say he was familiarising himself with the vehicle in the name of safety. It couldn't have been that dangerous or they would have stopped him sooner. Bet the following police loved the chance to go that fast, perk of the job!

PC Milton was eventually convicted, so I don't believe that excuse washed.

[98elise]

It would have to be a special set of circumstances for it not dangerous. He may be the best driver in the world but other drivers, pedestrians etc will base their driving on what they would resonably expect other vehicles to be doing.

A mate of mine was killed doing about 100mph in a 30. He was riding a bike, and a car pulled out of a junction. I saw the accident site about 10 minutes after the accident occured (nothing to do with the accident, it was on my walk home). It was a terrible sight, and something I will remember for the rest of my life.

He hit the car hard enough to put a huge V in the side. He was killed, and his brother who was on the back was thrown over the car and survived, but was seriously injured The car driver and a passenger were also badly injured.

[Rovinghawk]

10 Pence Short said:

PC Milton was eventually convicted, so I don't believe that excuse washed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2304618/PC-Mark-Milton-Police-officer-caused-outcry-testing-patrol-car-159mph-cleared-high-speed-crash.html

His conviction was overturned, so that excuse washes just fine.

Edited by Rovinghawk on Wednesday 19th March 08:21

[Dr Jekyll]

98elise said:

It would have to be a special set of circumstances for it not dangerous. He may be the best driver in the world but other drivers, pedestrians etc will base their driving on what they would resonably expect other vehicles to be doing.

A mate of mine was killed doing about 100mph in a 30. He was riding a bike, and a car pulled out of a junction. I saw the accident site about 10 minutes after the accident occured (nothing to do with the accident, it was on my walk home). It was a terrible sight, and something I will remember for the rest of my life.

He hit the car hard enough to put a huge V in the side. He was killed, and his brother who was on the back was thrown over the car and survived, but was seriously injured The car driver and a passenger were also badly injured.

But was the 111 in a 30 guy going through a junction at that speed.

Someone who goes through a junction and past pedestrians at 40 in a 30 is unlikely to be done for dangerous driving. But someone who stick to 25 MPH through those hazards and then get's cracking when it's clear could well be.

[aw51 121565]

I would say this incident occured on the A5 between Menai Bridge (the village) and Llanfair PG - there is no way a car could attain 110mph and overtake other vehicles on the Menai Bridge .

And 111mph is 270% over the quoted 30mph limit, so I'm not surprised the Mags passed it on to Crown Court... As alluded to upthread, though, this may not mean a stripy tan ready for Autumn but he may walk away with "only" a significant driving ban plus fines.

[10 Pence Short]

Rovinghawk said:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2304618/PC...

His conviction was overturned, so that excuse washes just fine.

Edited by Rovinghawk on Wednesday 19th March 08:21

For the original dangerous driving offence (the notorious testing incident), the High Court eventually sent it back to the District Judge who convicted and I believe handed down a conditional discharge.

Edited by 10 Pence Short on Wednesday 19th March 09:03

[Rovinghawk]

From the link:

"The case returned to court after an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions and Milton was convicted of the crime before he was again cleared in 2007 by the High Court, which ruled the decision to find him guilty was 'misdirected'."

[Pappagallo]

aw51 121565 said:

I would say this incident occured on the A5 between Menai Bridge (the village) and Llanfair PG - there is no way a car could attain 110mph and overtake other vehicles on the Menai Bridge .

As an Anglesey lad I have to agree.

But still, what a nob.

[Aretnap]

Rovinghawk said:

From the link:

"The case returned to court after an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions and Milton was convicted of the crime before he was again cleared in 2007 by the High Court, which ruled the decision to find him guilty was 'misdirected'."

But that had nothing to do with the excuse that he was familiarising himself with the car. It was because the High Court found that the district judge should have taken his training and unusual driving skills into account when deciding whether his driving was dangerous. You really shouldn't rely on the Daily Mail for understanding of complex legal points - the actual decision is here.

The High Court ruling was itself overturned by the Appeal Court in R v Bannister which means that today Milton would likely be convicted in the same circumstances.

[agtlaw]

Rovinghawk said:

From the link:

"The case returned to court after an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions and Milton was convicted of the crime before he was again cleared in 2007 by the High Court, which ruled the decision to find him guilty was 'misdirected'."

That isn't right. By the way, apart from 159/70, he did 86/30 and 114/60.

Mags - acquitted by DJ Morgan
High Court - DPP appeal allowed. Case remitted to Mags.
Mags - convicted by DJ Wallis. Absolute discharge.
High Court - Defence appeal allowed. Case remitted to DJ Wallis.
Mags - convicted by DJ Wallis. Absolute discharge.

At no point was he "cleared by the High Court"

Then, in 2009, the Court of Appeal in Bannister looked at whether the High Court decisions in Milton were correct and decided:

"the decision in Milton ... was not correct. It therefore follows that the special skill (or indeed lack of skill) of a driver is an irrelevant circumstance when considering whether the driving is dangerous"

[spikeyhead]

Pappagallo said:

aw51 121565 said:

I would say this incident occured on the A5 between Menai Bridge (the village) and Llanfair PG - there is no way a car could attain 110mph and overtake other vehicles on the Menai Bridge .

As an Anglesey lad I have to agree.

But still, what a nob.

I used to live in Beaumaris and I too agree. It's still a dumb place to be travelling that quickly.