Lenient sentence?
Discussion
agtlaw said:
pocketspring said:
Does anyone think the CPS appeal?
Odd question as there is no right of appeal for the CPS and an AG Reference applies only to a very limited number of offences.ED209 said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I 100% agree but it’s not the same as jumping in your own car and doing those speeds for the sake of it. The organisation has put her in a position where she could take those risks. They shouldn’t have. You see it all the time in US police pursuits where a police driver has to back off as they aren't PIT certified etc.
Entirely her fault.
ED209 said:
This case proves my opinion that young response cops who are only basic drivers should never be given the keys to a marked police vehicle. Too much pressure and temptation for them to speed to get to jobs and too much risk of it all going horribly wrong.
You’ll be right at the front of the queue whinging about the inefficiency that would cause. pocketspring said:
agtlaw said:
pocketspring said:
Does anyone think the CPS appeal?
Odd question as there is no right of appeal for the CPS and an AG Reference applies only to a very limited number of offences.Dingu said:
You’ll be right at the front of the queue whinging about the inefficiency that would cause.
Of course I wouldn’t. It would actually make police forces do something about the issue and provide training and training capacity. It would reduce the risk to the public and the officers and in time would increase efficiency by reducing response times and increasing safety. In my force a basic driving authority can be given if the cops complete a knowledge check and a form is signed. There are zero checks on their actual ability to drive. Yes it is made clear to them they stick to the law, don’t use blue lights and don’t speed but these are generally young people, keen to impress and trying to meet a demand. They absolutely should not be put in a position where they can be tempted to take risks, risks with the best intentions but risks all the same.
ED209 said:
This case proves my opinion that young response cops who are only basic drivers should never be given the keys to a marked police vehicle. Too much pressure and temptation for them to speed to get to jobs and too much risk of it all going horribly wrong.
Being cynical I do wonder if the senior ranks were knowingly turning a blind eye to untrained officers speeding so they could save on training costs whilst still hitting targets for response times. anonymous said:
[redacted]
Quite. Except the force might also be partly culpable / responsible if it really didn’t consistently and effectively lay down the law about what non-response drivers could and couldn’t do.
Also, another sign of a slightly chaotic organisational culture (OK, squeezed budgets don’t help) . . . reasonable assumption that the vehicle had a data recorder / tracker fitted, and the driver has to touch-in with a fob or card. Would be straightforward to have an automated process that periodically flags up instances of driving outside the permitted capacity of the driver.
But no . . . .
Eyersey1234 said:
agtlaw said:
Odd question as there is no right of appeal for the CPS and an AG Reference applies only to a very limited number of offences.
Why is there no right of appeal for the CPS? I'm talking generally not in this specific casemartinbiz said:
Why would there be? Appeal against what, they haven’t been convicted and punished for a crime, there is a process if a sentence is seen to be well wide of the mark, unduly harsh or lenient, but it’s not a process that involves an any appeal by the CPS
That is the system but it is a fair question to ask why the prosecution/cps cannot appeal an unuly lenient sentence.I don't see why there should not be a process for doing so.
This business of an appeal to the AG is not up to par if you aks me.
Some of the sentences handed down to those who kill by dangerous driving are ridiculously low.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff