Speeding - require to be stopped?
Discussion
A mate was clocked on a radar gun, two police standing behind a bush by the road, travelling at approximately 100mph. He wasn't actually stopped by the police though.
Does he have to be stopped or can the police just charge him later?
If he can be charged later, when should he expect to be contacted?
Your thoughts are much appreciated.
Cheers
G
Does he have to be stopped or can the police just charge him later?
If he can be charged later, when should he expect to be contacted?
Your thoughts are much appreciated.
Cheers
G
Normally when operarting with hand held radar use is made of a stopping agent further down the road. By doing so it saves contention as driver ID immediate and verbal NOIP - job done. No avenue for argument (except the device?).
However because of high speed involved it may well have been dangerous to step in road, hold hand up and produce desperate braking. So instead a note of vehicle VRM and paper follow up i.e. NOIP and S 172 form (name driver) on Reg Keeper. Then follow up with summons to Court. Time scale? Could be anything up to 6 months, possibly over.
Light at the end of the tunnel. If no paper work i.e. NOIP/172 form by last post of 15th day from incident then breath easily. May have been on a speed survey or didn't catch the friend.
DVD
However because of high speed involved it may well have been dangerous to step in road, hold hand up and produce desperate braking. So instead a note of vehicle VRM and paper follow up i.e. NOIP and S 172 form (name driver) on Reg Keeper. Then follow up with summons to Court. Time scale? Could be anything up to 6 months, possibly over.
Light at the end of the tunnel. If no paper work i.e. NOIP/172 form by last post of 15th day from incident then breath easily. May have been on a speed survey or didn't catch the friend.
DVD
Dwight VanDriver said:
Normally when operarting with hand held radar use is made of a stopping agent further down the road. By doing so it saves contention as driver ID immediate and verbal NOIP - job done. No avenue for argument (except the device?).
Does that not leave two avenues for arguement.
You get stopped cautioned, and verbal NOIP, however you clearly state that you don't understand the caution and wish to consult PACE from which the caution was given. This is not practical as they won't have a copy in the vehicle and you can decline to accompany them to the station as you are not under arrest, it leaves two choices they either get a car out to you with a copy of PACE in it, in which case you embark on a battle of will reading it page by page as to who will crack first, you who risks loosing license and big fine or plod who goes off shift in X hours time, or they record your response that you don't understand what has been said to you and have asked for clarification which has been declined, meaning that the verbal NOIP won't stand and will have to be served in writting within the 15 days, if nothing in 14+1 then job done away and free.
As for the identification if you have no means of ID on you which is perfectly legal and you decline to sign any forms or as was tryed on me you refuse to be fingerprinted at the road side (has to be an arrestable which carries custodial of 5 years or more for DNA or fingerprints) then they have failed to positively ID you at the road side and you can throw doubt onto who was driving at a later date. Odds are you will get a "producer" at the road side but if you fail to produce but at a later date can show you were properly insured etc as the registered keeper there should be resonable doubt as to who was actually driving.
Sorry DVD I'm not picking holes in your very informative response (as they always are) but if anything I would be interested to hear your views on the 2 avenues of contention shown above.
mel said:
As for the identification if you have no means of ID on you which is perfectly legal and you decline to sign any forms or as was tryed on me you refuse to be fingerprinted at the road side (has to be an arrestable which carries custodial of 5 years or more for DNA or fingerprints) then they have failed to positively ID you at the road side and you can throw doubt onto who was driving at a later date. Odds are you will get a "producer" at the road side but if you fail to produce but at a later date can show you were properly insured etc as the registered keeper there should be resonable doubt as to who was actually driving.
Taking this course of action could risk the subject being arrested under the provisions of s25 of PACE... And fingerprints are now taken every time someone is arrested for (or on suspicion of) an offence.
And as for not understanding the caution, it can always be explained in layman's terms (although of course you could also claim that you did not understand the explanation either).
Dibble said:
Taking this course of action could risk the subject being arrested under the provisions of s25 of PACE... And fingerprints are now taken every time someone is arrested for (or on suspicion of) an offence.
I was threatened with arrest for this at the roadside, when I asked what the growds for the arrest were I was told "Because I am unable to identify you" we then entered a very reasonable and structured conversation as to the facts that I had not been obstructive or unreasonable in any, I had not failed to carry any identification that was required in law, and I had not failed to sign anything or give any information that I was legally required to give. The facts were I had told him who I was, where I lived and my date of birth, this information tallied with the registered keeper of the vehicle. So put simply I had done everything I was legally required to do, the fact that the officer "chose" not to necessarily believe the information I gave him was frankly not my problem and gave him no grounds to detain me, In my case the officer chose to agree and let me go on my merry way.
Dibble said:
And as for not understanding the caution, it can always be explained in layman's terms (although of course you could also claim that you did not understand the explanation either).
Surely if the police choose to introduce PACE into a speeding offence (which I accept has been shown in case law not to apply to speeding) by giving a verbal PACE caution at the road side then by default the rest of PACE comes into play which includes the legal right to consult a copy of the act before going any further. The fact that speeding is not an arrestable offence and therefore one cannot be detained and taken to a police station is again not relevant if they bring PACE into play by cautioning they should also be prepared to supply a copy if asked, and that means at the roadside.
Surely that attitude is why Police Forces the length and bredth of the country get sued, and individual officers disciplined on a regular basis for wrongful arrest.
I would have thought that as a public servant you had a duty to listen to what the "public" say to you.
I have never "argued" with a police officer I have simply refused to go further than I am legally obliged and refused to help them take away my driving license. Certainly the officers that I have come into contact with have been fully clued up on why I was acting the way I was and what my motivation for doing it was (I needed to do every thing I possibly could to preserve my driving license and hence livelyhood) regardless of what I had or hadn't done wrong. By acting the way I did I have simply used their own laws against them, if that means a court has got to decide then so be it I'll relish the day, but why when the laws broken are simply stupid should life be made easy for the people enforcing them.
I would have thought that as a public servant you had a duty to listen to what the "public" say to you.
I have never "argued" with a police officer I have simply refused to go further than I am legally obliged and refused to help them take away my driving license. Certainly the officers that I have come into contact with have been fully clued up on why I was acting the way I was and what my motivation for doing it was (I needed to do every thing I possibly could to preserve my driving license and hence livelyhood) regardless of what I had or hadn't done wrong. By acting the way I did I have simply used their own laws against them, if that means a court has got to decide then so be it I'll relish the day, but why when the laws broken are simply stupid should life be made easy for the people enforcing them.
Mel
Your mixing up oral NOIP with PACE caution -two seperate items.
Unless absolutely satisfied of your ID and address where a summons could be served then I am afraid you play into the hands of Plod and give him grounds to feel your collar.
As to ID by Fingerprint - has not CC Blunderbus of Leek County been trialling an electronic roadside fingerprint machine so the law is either there, in the pipeline or coming and there will be powers to deal with those who refuse. (Whoops that should give Wilde Cat a bushy tail)
On the 'caution Pace 'aspect, all that is required is that the oral warning formula NOIP be given and no need to give the PACE caution as the offence is complete, matters not that an admission/confession may be made or sought through questioning.
On the oral NOIP not being understood the civil case Day v Harris [1953] may be of interest which held where a provision required a notice to be read and explained was satsified if this was done, although the listener was mentally incapable of understanding it.(I kid you not).
Bearing in mind there is no set words for oral NOIP and that it is sufficient to bring to the attention of the transgressor the fact that he is being reported for the consideration of prosecution, I fail to see how one convinces the Magistrates "I didn't understand".
DVD
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Tuesday 14th June 08:17
Your mixing up oral NOIP with PACE caution -two seperate items.
Unless absolutely satisfied of your ID and address where a summons could be served then I am afraid you play into the hands of Plod and give him grounds to feel your collar.
As to ID by Fingerprint - has not CC Blunderbus of Leek County been trialling an electronic roadside fingerprint machine so the law is either there, in the pipeline or coming and there will be powers to deal with those who refuse. (Whoops that should give Wilde Cat a bushy tail)
On the 'caution Pace 'aspect, all that is required is that the oral warning formula NOIP be given and no need to give the PACE caution as the offence is complete, matters not that an admission/confession may be made or sought through questioning.
On the oral NOIP not being understood the civil case Day v Harris [1953] may be of interest which held where a provision required a notice to be read and explained was satsified if this was done, although the listener was mentally incapable of understanding it.(I kid you not).
Bearing in mind there is no set words for oral NOIP and that it is sufficient to bring to the attention of the transgressor the fact that he is being reported for the consideration of prosecution, I fail to see how one convinces the Magistrates "I didn't understand".
DVD
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Tuesday 14th June 08:17
My Plod source tells me that unless a person is under arrest, the only way to take their fingerprints is by consent.
The Police want to take your fingerprints at the roadside in order to save money.
It's costly to run ID parades and several months on from the incident, even a very dilligent Bib may not be able to positively identify you.
Don't feel that the motorist is again being singled out. There are a number of anti-social behaviour offences for which fixed penalty tickets are currently being issued. Fingerprints will be requested from those offenders as well.
The Police want to take your fingerprints at the roadside in order to save money.
It's costly to run ID parades and several months on from the incident, even a very dilligent Bib may not be able to positively identify you.
Don't feel that the motorist is again being singled out. There are a number of anti-social behaviour offences for which fixed penalty tickets are currently being issued. Fingerprints will be requested from those offenders as well.
mel said:
As for the identification if you have no means of ID on you which is perfectly legal and you decline to sign any forms or as was tryed on me you refuse to be fingerprinted at the road side (has to be an arrestable which carries custodial of 5 years or more for DNA or fingerprints) then they have failed to positively ID you at the road side and you can throw doubt onto who was driving at a later date. Odds are you will get a "producer" at the road side but if you fail to produce but at a later date can show you were properly insured etc as the registered keeper there should be resonable doubt as to who was actually driving.
As already stated if the BiB is not satisified of your name and address then he can arrest and detain you in order to make enquiries.
Whether you have been polite, done everything that has been asked etc etc has nothing to do with it. Like the majority of things under PACE the ONLY thing that counts is does the BiB believe it is a valid name and address. There is no measure of this, or test that you can challenge. If the BiB says he doesn't believe he has a valid name and address then it of to the police station you go. You have no readdress to this.
The DNA situation has also changed. As is now common practise with New Labia politics a bill was introduced to allow the police to take DNA samples. The bill had sufficient safeguards to prevent state abuse of this data which included DNA only being allowed in relation to serious offences and destroyed if a no charges / not guilty was the result.
The law been changed quietly on a number of occasions. Police can now forceably take DNA samples on suspicion that you have committed any recordable offence and keep the DNA indefinetly.
Mel,
You've raised some interesting points here. However, the name and address stuff really does leave you at a sticky wicket. If you tried that with me (not that i've ever had anything to do with laser devices etc
) you'd be coming in.....I really don't reccommend people try this. If you think it'll sound big and clever in Court then fine, but you'll be leaving red-faced and poorer......
You've raised some interesting points here. However, the name and address stuff really does leave you at a sticky wicket. If you tried that with me (not that i've ever had anything to do with laser devices etc
) you'd be coming in.....I really don't reccommend people try this. If you think it'll sound big and clever in Court then fine, but you'll be leaving red-faced and poorer......Hollywood Wheels said:
It's costly to run ID parades and several months on from the incident, even a very dilligent Bib may not be able to positively identify you.
EH?! Plod don't have to carry out ID parades to identify people they've dealt with!
No, just the ones who contest the charges on grounds of identification.
Lets say you're stopped for comitting a minor offence. You do not produce any ID to the Bib but he believes what you tell him. A few months on you receive a summons. You contest the charge, saying it wasn't you, someone else must have given your details.
How are they going to prove - beyond reasonable doubt, that it was you? They've not taken your photo nor your DNA or fingerprints so the only thing they can do is hold an ID parade?
It would be a very bold plod to let you go without doing some checks to confirm identity if non were shown otherwise arrest possible.
Tale from the past. One of my crew stopped a bloke and was furnished with what turned out to be false details but was traced and taken to Court. At Court he persisted wrong bloke and pleaded Not Guilty to all. When Defencee Solicitor, despite the officer ID'ing the offender, attacked the officer on the question of ID, the Officer asked the Court to have the defendant roll up his right sleeve whereby a tattoo of Donald Duck was displayed. The Officer passed the defence his pocket book and against the entry of the stop, some months before by now, was the words "has tattoo right forearm Donald Duck" Guilty all charges.
DVD
Tale from the past. One of my crew stopped a bloke and was furnished with what turned out to be false details but was traced and taken to Court. At Court he persisted wrong bloke and pleaded Not Guilty to all. When Defencee Solicitor, despite the officer ID'ing the offender, attacked the officer on the question of ID, the Officer asked the Court to have the defendant roll up his right sleeve whereby a tattoo of Donald Duck was displayed. The Officer passed the defence his pocket book and against the entry of the stop, some months before by now, was the words "has tattoo right forearm Donald Duck" Guilty all charges.
DVD
Mel.
From your posts above, it appears you have a little knowledge about PACE but you do not understand it or how it works. You would be on a sticky wicket if you chose to argue your point on those points you have posted above. Being cautioned/arrested does not give you the right to consult a copy of the codes of practice until your detention has been authorised at the Police station. There is always an option for you to be arrested after caution and then de-arrested should some more information come to light clearing up a misunderstanding as long as you have not reached the Police station.
Being clever with a small amount of knowledge may one day have you seeking legal advice from a small room with stripey daylight whilst you indeed have access to a copy of the codes of practice, the right to consult with an independant solicitor free of charge and the right to have someone informed of your whereabouts unless of course you have been arrested for a serious arrestable offence and the Inspector has withdrawn your rights copletely!
From your posts above, it appears you have a little knowledge about PACE but you do not understand it or how it works. You would be on a sticky wicket if you chose to argue your point on those points you have posted above. Being cautioned/arrested does not give you the right to consult a copy of the codes of practice until your detention has been authorised at the Police station. There is always an option for you to be arrested after caution and then de-arrested should some more information come to light clearing up a misunderstanding as long as you have not reached the Police station.
Being clever with a small amount of knowledge may one day have you seeking legal advice from a small room with stripey daylight whilst you indeed have access to a copy of the codes of practice, the right to consult with an independant solicitor free of charge and the right to have someone informed of your whereabouts unless of course you have been arrested for a serious arrestable offence and the Inspector has withdrawn your rights copletely!
Dwight VanDriver said:
It would be a very bold plod to let you go without doing some checks to confirm identity
Then perhaps you could explain why i recieved a summons a year or 2 back for the following.
No Insurance
No MOT
No Tax
No Licence
Failing to produce documents in whatever time (14 days?)
All because a local TrafPol had taken some scrote's word that he was in fact me.
This led to almost a week of grief for me trying to track down the officer in question. Progress was only made when i caught the Chief Inspector at the front desk of the plod station and ripped him a new ***hole over the lack of co-operation from his staff.
I recieved a phone call next day from said TrafPol, who took my word over the phone that it was not me he'd stopped some 5 months earlier...
>> Edited by monkeyhanger on Sunday 26th June 23:22
mel said:
Surely if the police choose to introduce PACE into a speeding offence (which I accept has been shown in case law not to apply to speeding)
PACE covers how all offences are dealt with not just those where arrest is an option.
Mel said:
by giving a verbal PACE caution at the road side
All cautions are governed by PACE. PACE states as soon as an officer has grounds to suspect an offence has been committed, he must caution. That includes Murder to dropping litter.
Mel said:
then by default the rest of PACE comes into play which includes the legal right to consult a copy of the act before going any further.
NO!
Mel said:
The fact that speeding is not an arrestable offence and therefore one cannot be detained and taken to a police station
Section 25 of PACE 1984 covers the general power of arrest for ANY OFFENCE. If certain criteria are met by the conduct of the suspect, then it can bring section 25 into play where you can indeed be arrested for speeding or even stepping on the cracks in the pavement!
Mel said:
is again not relevant if they bring PACE into play by cautioning they should also be prepared to supply a copy if asked, and that means at the roadside.
Wrong! Completely! If I were you I would forget about spouting PACE to any Officer who happens to get your dander up as you will likely get to the point where you find out how it really works
>> Edited by gone on Sunday 26th June 23:29
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff