Policeman free after 2am car chase
Discussion
Policeman free after 2am car chase
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article1361962.ece
Helen Nugent
PC Timothy Dunning, from Thames Valley Police, left court this week after being acquitted of a single charge of dangerous driving. He has a further trial for drink-driving to come.
An ordinary motorist who admits that they failed to stop for the police and is accused by officers of speeding, giving a false name and being obstructive would expect to be penalised.
That same driver would also fear for his motoring future if found to be allegedly twice the drink-drive limit.
Last night, motoring groups were bemused and angry that PC Dunning did not face other charges.
In a further twist to the case, the jury at Reading Crown Court was told that PC Dunning was a man of good character. After the jurors retired to consider their verdict, Alex Verdan, the court Recorder, turned to PC Dunning’s defence counsel and asked if it was correct that the officer had no previous convictions. Barrister Robert Meikle then revealed that PC Dunning had a speeding conviction and been disciplined for using alcohol while on duty.
He said: “There is one speeding matter and another disciplinary matter.”
The jury was not recalled and they returned two hours later to pronounce the 44-year-old officer as not guilty of dangerous driving.
After the trial, motoring groups questioned why PC Dunning had not faced charges of obstruction or failing to stop.
They pointed to comments made by PC Dunning’s barrister, who told the jury: “You may consider that in the small hours of the morning Mr Dunning behaved like a complete goodness knows what. I imagine that some of you may use more colourful words in your mind.
“What on earth was he doing? A serving police officer failing to stop and leading them on a merry dance around the countyside.”
But he went on to explain: “You are not trying him for failing to stop, you’re not trying him for excess alcohol, you are not trying him for exceeding the speed limit. He wasn’t even charged with exceeding the speed limit.”
Last night Paul Smith, the founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign, asked: “Is this cockup or conspiracy?”
He said: “Why was he not charged with the other offences which, on the face of it, sound as if they would have easily been proved in court? Most drivers would surely have found themselves in a different position.” Kevin Clinton, head of safety at the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, added: “We and the public have the right to expect the police to set the right example in the way they behave as drivers and if they drive badly or break the law, they are treated in exactly the same way as other drivers by the police and the courts.”
During the trial, the court was told that PC Dunning was spotted driving his van at 2am at high speed near his home in Milton-under-Wychwood, Oxfordshire, in March last year. Marked police cars gave chase with their blue lights flashing and sirens sounding.
PC Robert Stubley, who was driving one of the vehicles, told the jury how PC Dunning refused to stop.
Another officer, acting Sergeant Peter Reid, said that the police car reached 80mph at one point in the pursuit.
Giving evidence, PC Dunning said that he failed to stop because “it would have caused me embarrassing or potentially embarrassing conversations”.
The jury was told that PC Dunning, who has been suspended on full pay for almost a year, had earlier drunk two pints of Guinness when out for a meal and a measure of whisky at a friend’s house.
He maintained throughout the trial that he had not driven dangerously and said that he felt fine to drive.
After the trial, a spokesman for Thames Valley Police said: “The charges are a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service.” A spokeswoman for the CPS told The Times: “Dangerous driving is a serious offence and it encompasses the actions of the police officer. We felt it was the appropriate charge.” PC Dunning still faces a charge of drink-driving to be heard at a magistrates’ court at a later date.
Case closed
An officer was let off a speeding fine last year in South Yorkshire, arguing that he was on an emergency call, despite picking up a Chinese takeaway on the way
In October Charles Fletcher, 26, a detective, was jailed for seven years for passing on sensitive information. He was being paid in Armani suits
A senior Manchester officer was moved from frontline duties in 2004 after being cleared of drink-driving because the officer who charged him did not follow procedure
An officer in Merseyside was fined for driving while talking on her mobile phone in March 2004
In September an officer was jailed for killing a woman while drink-driving in his new car in Berkshire
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article1361962.ece
Helen Nugent
PC Timothy Dunning, from Thames Valley Police, left court this week after being acquitted of a single charge of dangerous driving. He has a further trial for drink-driving to come.
An ordinary motorist who admits that they failed to stop for the police and is accused by officers of speeding, giving a false name and being obstructive would expect to be penalised.
That same driver would also fear for his motoring future if found to be allegedly twice the drink-drive limit.
Last night, motoring groups were bemused and angry that PC Dunning did not face other charges.
In a further twist to the case, the jury at Reading Crown Court was told that PC Dunning was a man of good character. After the jurors retired to consider their verdict, Alex Verdan, the court Recorder, turned to PC Dunning’s defence counsel and asked if it was correct that the officer had no previous convictions. Barrister Robert Meikle then revealed that PC Dunning had a speeding conviction and been disciplined for using alcohol while on duty.
He said: “There is one speeding matter and another disciplinary matter.”
The jury was not recalled and they returned two hours later to pronounce the 44-year-old officer as not guilty of dangerous driving.
After the trial, motoring groups questioned why PC Dunning had not faced charges of obstruction or failing to stop.
They pointed to comments made by PC Dunning’s barrister, who told the jury: “You may consider that in the small hours of the morning Mr Dunning behaved like a complete goodness knows what. I imagine that some of you may use more colourful words in your mind.
“What on earth was he doing? A serving police officer failing to stop and leading them on a merry dance around the countyside.”
But he went on to explain: “You are not trying him for failing to stop, you’re not trying him for excess alcohol, you are not trying him for exceeding the speed limit. He wasn’t even charged with exceeding the speed limit.”
Last night Paul Smith, the founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign, asked: “Is this cockup or conspiracy?”
He said: “Why was he not charged with the other offences which, on the face of it, sound as if they would have easily been proved in court? Most drivers would surely have found themselves in a different position.” Kevin Clinton, head of safety at the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, added: “We and the public have the right to expect the police to set the right example in the way they behave as drivers and if they drive badly or break the law, they are treated in exactly the same way as other drivers by the police and the courts.”
During the trial, the court was told that PC Dunning was spotted driving his van at 2am at high speed near his home in Milton-under-Wychwood, Oxfordshire, in March last year. Marked police cars gave chase with their blue lights flashing and sirens sounding.
PC Robert Stubley, who was driving one of the vehicles, told the jury how PC Dunning refused to stop.
Another officer, acting Sergeant Peter Reid, said that the police car reached 80mph at one point in the pursuit.
Giving evidence, PC Dunning said that he failed to stop because “it would have caused me embarrassing or potentially embarrassing conversations”.
The jury was told that PC Dunning, who has been suspended on full pay for almost a year, had earlier drunk two pints of Guinness when out for a meal and a measure of whisky at a friend’s house.
He maintained throughout the trial that he had not driven dangerously and said that he felt fine to drive.
After the trial, a spokesman for Thames Valley Police said: “The charges are a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service.” A spokeswoman for the CPS told The Times: “Dangerous driving is a serious offence and it encompasses the actions of the police officer. We felt it was the appropriate charge.” PC Dunning still faces a charge of drink-driving to be heard at a magistrates’ court at a later date.
Case closed
An officer was let off a speeding fine last year in South Yorkshire, arguing that he was on an emergency call, despite picking up a Chinese takeaway on the way
In October Charles Fletcher, 26, a detective, was jailed for seven years for passing on sensitive information. He was being paid in Armani suits
A senior Manchester officer was moved from frontline duties in 2004 after being cleared of drink-driving because the officer who charged him did not follow procedure
An officer in Merseyside was fined for driving while talking on her mobile phone in March 2004
In September an officer was jailed for killing a woman while drink-driving in his new car in Berkshire
hmmmm..... i hesitate to just jump in without knowing the full facts, but if what is said in that article is true, that really doesn't seem right.
i wonder if he wasn't charged with anything else, or that the CPS decided not to go ahead with other charges (apart from the drink driving).
it really doesn't do much for public relations.
i wonder if he wasn't charged with anything else, or that the CPS decided not to go ahead with other charges (apart from the drink driving).
it really doesn't do much for public relations.
At least the article makes the distinction (OK it's actually made by TVP, and quoted in the article) that it's the CPS that make the decision on chraging, NOT the Police.
But I can see the damage this will do to the Police/public relations. It would be more useful (as always) to have a few more details, or at least some insight into the decision making process about why he was or was not charged with specific offences.
Two pints of Guinness and a measure of whisky?
I'd be interested to know what his breath alcohol/blood alcohol reading was from that - from experience, I'd expect it to be pretty low, TBH.
But I can see the damage this will do to the Police/public relations. It would be more useful (as always) to have a few more details, or at least some insight into the decision making process about why he was or was not charged with specific offences.
Two pints of Guinness and a measure of whisky?
I'd be interested to know what his breath alcohol/blood alcohol reading was from that - from experience, I'd expect it to be pretty low, TBH.Having re-read, perhaps the decision by CPS to charge with Dangerous driving was based on the whole secnario, rather than several separate charges of FTS, excess speed, etc. Surprised he didn't get charged with at least obstruction if he gave false details though (which isn't clear from the article).
But don't forget Dibs that this is not a Police/CPS cover up but a decision to let off by twelve men good and true that obviously did not believe what the prosecution outlined against Plod. Bit like opinions on this forum at times?
Wonder what was said in the cloiing submissions and that of the Judge?
dvd
Wonder what was said in the cloiing submissions and that of the Judge?
dvd
Dwight VanDriver said:
But don't forget Dibs that this is not a Police/CPS cover up but a decision to let off by twelve men good and true that obviously did not believe what the prosecution outlined against Plod. Bit like opinions on this forum at times?
Wonder what was said in the cloiing submissions and that of the Judge?
dvd
Wonder what was said in the cloiing submissions and that of the Judge?
dvd
They did not find sufficient evidence to convict on the offence of Dangerous Driving. Which says that 12 good men and true do not think that failing to stop for the police and driving at a speed requiring the police to travel at 80mph to catch up is also not dangerous. I am sure you are aware that they were not asked to convict on Drink Driving, or Speeding. We will see if the DD charge sticks. The CPS decides which charges to lay, by the informations they put before the court, as you are no doubt aware as well, and only those charges are tried in court.
I am willing to bet that the judge, quite properly, directed them to put their minds ONLY to the charge of dangerous driving. I am also willing to bet that Defence counsel will, if that story is true, be up before the Bar Council shortly to explain why he told the court about good character. (unless he has the CPS charge sheet which is clear)
Edited by jasandjules on Saturday 10th February 09:42
Dwight VanDriver said:
But don't forget Dibs that this is not a Police/CPS cover up but a decision to let off by twelve men good and true that obviously did not believe what the prosecution outlined against Plod. Bit like opinions on this forum at times?
Wonder what was said in the cloiing submissions and that of the Judge?
dvd
Wonder what was said in the cloiing submissions and that of the Judge?
dvd
Fair point DVD, and as you rightly say, it's always tricky to get a balanced view when we have to rely on what's reported in the media.
We all know that sensation sells, and the press are under no obligation to tell the whole story, just the bits that will sell their particular paper/broadcast.
herewego said:
Do you think he will now be charged with the lesser, speeding and failing to stop offences?
Probably not, if he's already been charged with drink driving.
In the absence of this, I'm not sure whether the CPS would be allowed "two bites of the cherry", having already lost the dangerous driving at Court - double jeopardy/duplicity.
herewego said:
Do you think he will now be charged with the lesser, speeding and failing to stop offences?
I'd imagine statute of limitations is past & it would be abuse of process to do so at this stage IMHO anyway.
It isn't unusual though to only be charged with a limited number of more serious charges arising from an incident.
If you broke into a house and were caught in there stealing jewellery. You wouldn't usually be charged with burglary, theft of the jewellery, criminal damage for forcing entry & handling stolen goods etc. You would be charged with burglary.
CPS general charging practice advice said:
There should be no overloading of charges by selecting more charges than are necessary just to encourage the accused to plead guilty to a few
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 10th February 10:10
I suppose it wouldn’t make economic sense to charge minor offences when a serious one appears to have been committed. It would seem that due to failures by the CPS(wrong choice of offence?) he will be getting light treatment even if the drink driving charge sticks. I mean I don’t expect that many drink driving offences involve a chase. Of course the incident may be exaggerated by the journalist since the jury decided that his behaviour had not constituted dangerous driving. Are there not clear rules about what aspects of driving should be considered dangerous by a court? I mean do the jury decide if some aspect of his driving was dangerous or only whether he actually did it?
herewego said:
I suppose it wouldn’t make economic sense to charge minor offences when a serious one appears to have been committed. It would seem that due to failures by the CPS(wrong choice of offence?) he will be getting light treatment even if the drink driving charge sticks. I mean I don’t expect that many drink driving offences involve a chase. Of course the incident may be exaggerated by the journalist since the jury decided that his behaviour had not constituted dangerous driving. Are there not clear rules about what aspects of driving should be considered dangerous by a court? I mean do the jury decide if some aspect of his driving was dangerous or only whether he actually did it?
The jury decide both.
Even if he does get off with drink drive, he then has the prospect of a discipline hearing with a lower burden of proof.
Hmmm...
I would have thought failure to stop went a long way to constituting dangerous driving.
The article doesn't give details of how long the chase went on for, how many vehicles were involved or how the suspect was subsequently stopped. These factors would be significant to me had I been on that jury.
However, evasive driving under these sort of circumstances should hardly be seen to be condoned.
I would have thought failure to stop went a long way to constituting dangerous driving.
The article doesn't give details of how long the chase went on for, how many vehicles were involved or how the suspect was subsequently stopped. These factors would be significant to me had I been on that jury.
However, evasive driving under these sort of circumstances should hardly be seen to be condoned.
Edited by micky g on Saturday 10th February 11:07
article in paper said:
An ordinary motorist who admits that they failed to stop for the police and is accused by officers of speeding, giving a false name and being obstructive would expect to be penalised.
That same driver would also fear for his motoring future if found to be allegedly twice the drink-drive limit.
That same driver would also fear for his motoring future if found to be allegedly twice the drink-drive limit.
Two pints of Guiness .. measure of whisky.. :scratchin: Would depend how long ago consumed und with amount of food etc. May have also been in "Mellanby" effect too. But possibly twice limit all the same. But that ist for the next appearance in the court..
article in the paper said:
Last night, motoring groups were bemused and angry that PC Dunning did not face other charges.
In a further twist to the case, the jury at Reading Crown Court was told that PC Dunning was a man of good character. After the jurors retired to consider their verdict, Alex Verdan, the court Recorder, turned to PC Dunning’s defence counsel and asked if it was correct that the officer had no previous convictions. Barrister Robert Meikle then revealed that PC Dunning had a speeding conviction and been disciplined for using alcohol while on duty.
He said: “There is one speeding matter and another disciplinary matter.”
The jury was not recalled and they returned two hours later to pronounce the 44-year-old officer as not guilty of dangerous driving.
He was not being tried for his past discrepancies at work.. though the "good character" should not have been applied to jury as it could influence the decision as it appears to have in this case ... nor should the discrepancies be disclosed as this would also creat prejudice. Should have remained neutral. His good charaacter has nothing to do with it. Most of those who lose their licences for tot up blips are of good character .. but it make no difference to outcome
article in the paper said:
During the trial, the court was told that PC Dunning was spotted driving his van at 2am at high speed near his home in Milton-under-Wychwood, Oxfordshire, in March last year. Marked police cars gave chase with their blue lights flashing and sirens sounding.
PC Robert Stubley, who was driving one of the vehicles, told the jury how PC Dunning refused to stop.
Another officer, acting Sergeant Peter Reid, said that the police car reached 80mph at one point in the pursuit.
Per a document - CROWN COPYRIGHT 2006..which lay down the laws on Dangerous Driving Classification .. I read the following amongst other things..
1. Dangerous if the driver's speed was absolutely inappropriate for road condition.
2. if the driver ist callous in behaviour unf fails to stop
3. If driver disregards all road signs, traffic signs, und a police car complete with lights und sirens .. und the action would appear to all to be deliberate...
So why was this not argued to the hilt by CPS to convince that jury that they must convict this person.
Once wonders if they were "soft" on him as well.
article in the paper said:
Giving evidence, PC Dunning said that he failed to stop because “it would have caused me embarrassing or potentially embarrassing conversations”.
Und the situation ist not "embarrassing" for other members of public. I would say far more "embarrassing und compromising to reputation of our police force NOT to stop und be man enough to facee the music"
We want strong men like lieber gone und Dibble etc ..with a heart ..professional judgement... und pleasant nature (as cousin BiB once remark on a different forum.. repsect beget respect .. it does not serve anyone's interest to treat a suspect as less human regardless of crime suspected of.. but he admits this can be very difficult to keep complete objecitivity.. hence the need for strong characters und not wussy wimps in the police forces
article in the paper said:
The jury was told that PC Dunning, who has been suspended on full pay for almost a year, had earlier drunk two pints of Guinness when out for a meal and a measure of whisky at a friend’s house.
He maintained throughout the trial that he had not driven dangerously and said that he felt fine to drive.
In which case he had nothing to fear from a routine stop then.
As Mon Ami remind us... a police uniform does not automatically "cleanse a person or prevent any breaking of laws they are employed to enforce."
But .. as officers und representatives of these laws..und well paid for it by everyone in this country by collective taxation.. then there ist an expectaionsthat officers do not flout these laws und all the more onus on their responsibility not to drink und drive und drive like a twazak in the way as described.
vonhosen said:
herewego said:
I suppose it wouldn’t make economic sense to charge minor offences when a serious one appears to have been committed. It would seem that due to failures by the CPS(wrong choice of offence?) he will be getting light treatment even if the drink driving charge sticks. I mean I don’t expect that many drink driving offences involve a chase. Of course the incident may be exaggerated by the journalist since the jury decided that his behaviour had not constituted dangerous driving. Are there not clear rules about what aspects of driving should be considered dangerous by a court? I mean do the jury decide if some aspect of his driving was dangerous or only whether he actually did it?
The jury decide both.
Even if he does get off with drink drive, he then has the prospect of a discipline hearing with a lower burden of proof.
But will he get a driving ban like rest of the people in this country?
Presumably he will say the fizzing of the Guinness und his curry cause him to "burp" when blowing into the doo-dahs. Und he will then get aways with it like that soap sud actor a few weeks ago..
(His second offence by the way.. und how on earth you prove if person belched und farted when giving sample ist beyond me chrispy porker said:
If convicted... I wouldn't much fancy his chances at the subsequent disciplinary. 
I wouldn't fancy his chances much if he's not convicted at Court - reading between the lines, it seems he may have some issues with alcohol (as per his previous disciplinary).
More an more forces (mine included) are now introducing random drug/alcohol screening for officers (which, if done properly, I don't personally have a problem with).
Dibble said:
chrispy porker said:
If convicted... I wouldn't much fancy his chances at the subsequent disciplinary.
I wouldn't fancy his chances much if he's not convicted at Court - reading between the lines, it seems he may have some issues with alcohol (as per his previous disciplinary).
More an more forces (mine included) are now introducing random drug/alcohol screening for officers (which, if done properly, I don't personally have a problem with).
I also do not have problem with routine tests on me in my profession .. nor does the Mad Doc.
You have to be fit und clear headed for our kind of jobs ..most jobs in fact
I think most jobs und employers have issue with drinking stuff other than teas, coffees, water, Luzozade und so on whilst working. We even now ban smoking in work places und even in vicinity in some cases. If this officer has a drink problem though.. he still need advice to sort it und get life back after being sacked as likely outcome here. Perhaps he not suited to job any more in any case as stressing towards taking to drink... but even so.. one hopes that he get pointed in right direction to get some help.
for debate purpose..
However, had he been convicted of dangerous driving und received ban... would the drink driving ban (assuming conviction) have run concurrently or consecutively with a dangerous drive ban.. und would he have been required to take extended test or booze course prior to being allowed a return of licence after bans expire?
It stinks, the jury can only determine guilt or innocence from the information that is put before them, you have to seriously question the CPS's role in this affair.
Don't delude yourselves by hiding behind details that may or may not be here, no matter how you spin or dress it the bare bones of this incident do not make good reading. It is yet another incident that will have done the Police's standing and reputation serious damage with the public it suppose to be serving. A bad day for Justice me thinks
Question; At what point can the negligence of the CPS or more likely an employee of the CPS be held accountable for this apparent failure to secure an obvious and serious conviction.
Don't delude yourselves by hiding behind details that may or may not be here, no matter how you spin or dress it the bare bones of this incident do not make good reading. It is yet another incident that will have done the Police's standing and reputation serious damage with the public it suppose to be serving. A bad day for Justice me thinks
Question; At what point can the negligence of the CPS or more likely an employee of the CPS be held accountable for this apparent failure to secure an obvious and serious conviction.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff