Double Speeding Offence - Help!
Discussion
A friend of mine was caught speeding over the weekend in his Lotus Elise.
He was on a relatively empty dual carriageway with a new road surface and excellent visibility (thanks to the weather this weekend!). He was stopped by a policeman who had a trainee with him.
The policeman informed him that he had recorded him at 102mph over a section of the dual carriageway between two roundabouts. This was recorded on video and a data logger of some description. Despite the circumstances described in paragraph 2 (light traffic, excellent visibility, high performance car) there was no offer to reduce the charge to a value below 100mph which seemed a bit harsh to me, but could perhaps be explained by the fact that there was a trainee present. My friend was courteous throughout as he isn't an idiot and knows better than to argue with a policeman in these circumstances.
The above was bad enough, and I thought a little harsh (not offering to reduce the charge to 99mph or something) but it then became ridiculous when the policeman said, "I caught you doing 95mph between the previous set of roundabouts" (i.e. on the section immediately preceding the one he was caught doing 102mph on, on the same dual carriageway ) "but I didn't get that on the logger." Then he decided that as he had it on video anyway he'd do him for that offence too!
My friend has a clean licence and has had for several years. He is a contractor in the IT industry. What kind of punishment can he expect and does anyone have any advice on how he should approach his case? Does the fact that he has a clean licence and is a contractor and hence needs to remain mobile mean he is unlikely to get a ban? Will the fact that his 95mph offence was really the same event be considered when he appears in court for his 102mph offence? I'm kind of worried that he will get 6 points for each, totting up to 12, and hence lose his licence!
Madcop, I'd particularly like to hear your thoughts on this.
On a more emotive note, I was infuriated by the behaviour of the officer involved. Fair enough, my friend was speeding and was caught, I don't think anyone would argue that if the policeman decides to ticket you then fair enough - if you can't do the time don't do the crime, etc.
However, I thought it a little unreasonable that he didn't reduce the charge to 99mph or similar, so my friend didn't have to make an appearance in court, and I thought it outrageous that he did him for both offences when to my mind it was really the same thing. To me that's like charging a burglar twice for breaking into two rooms in a house.
It's this kind of behaviour from the police that p!sses of the public. I think some of them forget that they need our co-operation to do their job - without the co-operation of the people they exist to protect they are worthless. If they aren't going to display and judgement and discretion we could just replace them with robots. I'd love to hear if people think the policeman's actions were totally justified or whether anyone else thinks they were total overkill? Again I'd also like to hear from our resident BiBs on this (Madcop, gemini, et al).
Cheers.
roadsweeper.
PS: I'm not anti-police but things like this make it really difficult to maintain that kind of attitude.
He was on a relatively empty dual carriageway with a new road surface and excellent visibility (thanks to the weather this weekend!). He was stopped by a policeman who had a trainee with him.
The policeman informed him that he had recorded him at 102mph over a section of the dual carriageway between two roundabouts. This was recorded on video and a data logger of some description. Despite the circumstances described in paragraph 2 (light traffic, excellent visibility, high performance car) there was no offer to reduce the charge to a value below 100mph which seemed a bit harsh to me, but could perhaps be explained by the fact that there was a trainee present. My friend was courteous throughout as he isn't an idiot and knows better than to argue with a policeman in these circumstances.
The above was bad enough, and I thought a little harsh (not offering to reduce the charge to 99mph or something) but it then became ridiculous when the policeman said, "I caught you doing 95mph between the previous set of roundabouts" (i.e. on the section immediately preceding the one he was caught doing 102mph on, on the same dual carriageway ) "but I didn't get that on the logger." Then he decided that as he had it on video anyway he'd do him for that offence too!
My friend has a clean licence and has had for several years. He is a contractor in the IT industry. What kind of punishment can he expect and does anyone have any advice on how he should approach his case? Does the fact that he has a clean licence and is a contractor and hence needs to remain mobile mean he is unlikely to get a ban? Will the fact that his 95mph offence was really the same event be considered when he appears in court for his 102mph offence? I'm kind of worried that he will get 6 points for each, totting up to 12, and hence lose his licence!
Madcop, I'd particularly like to hear your thoughts on this. On a more emotive note, I was infuriated by the behaviour of the officer involved. Fair enough, my friend was speeding and was caught, I don't think anyone would argue that if the policeman decides to ticket you then fair enough - if you can't do the time don't do the crime, etc.
However, I thought it a little unreasonable that he didn't reduce the charge to 99mph or similar, so my friend didn't have to make an appearance in court, and I thought it outrageous that he did him for both offences when to my mind it was really the same thing. To me that's like charging a burglar twice for breaking into two rooms in a house.
It's this kind of behaviour from the police that p!sses of the public. I think some of them forget that they need our co-operation to do their job - without the co-operation of the people they exist to protect they are worthless. If they aren't going to display and judgement and discretion we could just replace them with robots.
I'd love to hear if people think the policeman's actions were totally justified or whether anyone else thinks they were total overkill? Again I'd also like to hear from our resident BiBs on this (Madcop, gemini, et al). Cheers.
roadsweeper.
PS: I'm not anti-police but things like this make it really difficult to maintain that kind of attitude.
I do believe that many people who cannot do their jobs without a licence and who have to drive thousands of miles each year will simply continue to drive without a licence if and when they get a totting-up ban. They may well buy a very nondescrpt car, like a Mondeo or an Escort in order to better 'blend-in' and probably won't register the car in their own name.
In reality a project engineer, sales manager or similar will lose not only their licence, but their job, their career prospects, probably their home and, quite possibly, their marriage, through one camera offence per year for three years. Now, is this an appropriate sentence for such minor offences when compared to community service for burglars and muggers?
I do know that I would have no real option but to continue to drive if banned under totting-up, the alternative would be to lose my business, pension entitlement, and prospects for a decent retirement.
The backlash will happen soon now and the police service will lose the support of middle England due to their having truly "lost-the-plot"!
I feel quite sorry for the average and fair-minded police officer (and I'm not being patronising in saying this). I have several friends in the job and they are already getting the feel of the results of the anti-motoring attitudes from the Chief Constables and their masters in the Home Office.
In reality a project engineer, sales manager or similar will lose not only their licence, but their job, their career prospects, probably their home and, quite possibly, their marriage, through one camera offence per year for three years. Now, is this an appropriate sentence for such minor offences when compared to community service for burglars and muggers?
I do know that I would have no real option but to continue to drive if banned under totting-up, the alternative would be to lose my business, pension entitlement, and prospects for a decent retirement.
The backlash will happen soon now and the police service will lose the support of middle England due to their having truly "lost-the-plot"!
I feel quite sorry for the average and fair-minded police officer (and I'm not being patronising in saying this). I have several friends in the job and they are already getting the feel of the results of the anti-motoring attitudes from the Chief Constables and their masters in the Home Office.
Think about the Policemans position.
He has a trainee (as you put it)
He has evidence which is on a recorded data logger (whatever that may be?)
He drops the speed to 99 to save your friend a ban and your friend decides to challenge the fatc that he was exceeding the limit in any case.
Policeman has to put through a report stating that he stopped the offender at 99mph but then realises that the video evidence contradicts this. He cannot then give evidence in court on oath that the person was speeding at 99mph because it was not true. He was actually doing 102mph. Can you see where I am going here?
Police officers are at the mercy of the people they stop if that person decides to throw the goodwill shown away and fight the allegation. That could seriously compromise the officers job and even his liberty, especially if he has a trainee watching his every move who may not be as difficult to interview when professional standards dept investigate the reasons the case has been thrown out under allegations of perjury!
The Policeman did not know your friend.
He owes him nothing.
He owes everything to be honest and to keep a roof over his family!
For your information, I would think that both offences reported will be looked at by CPS as a continuing offence and the summons will state that he drove for XX distnace at speeds of between 95 and 102mph over that distance. Therefore he will receive only 1 summons and not 2.
>> Edited by madcop on Monday 14th July 13:58
He has a trainee (as you put it)
He has evidence which is on a recorded data logger (whatever that may be?)
He drops the speed to 99 to save your friend a ban and your friend decides to challenge the fatc that he was exceeding the limit in any case.
Policeman has to put through a report stating that he stopped the offender at 99mph but then realises that the video evidence contradicts this. He cannot then give evidence in court on oath that the person was speeding at 99mph because it was not true. He was actually doing 102mph. Can you see where I am going here?
Police officers are at the mercy of the people they stop if that person decides to throw the goodwill shown away and fight the allegation. That could seriously compromise the officers job and even his liberty, especially if he has a trainee watching his every move who may not be as difficult to interview when professional standards dept investigate the reasons the case has been thrown out under allegations of perjury!
The Policeman did not know your friend.
He owes him nothing.
He owes everything to be honest and to keep a roof over his family!
For your information, I would think that both offences reported will be looked at by CPS as a continuing offence and the summons will state that he drove for XX distnace at speeds of between 95 and 102mph over that distance. Therefore he will receive only 1 summons and not 2.
>> Edited by madcop on Monday 14th July 13:58
Madcop,
If he is reported for driving at speeds between 95 and 102 for n metres how does the magistrate ascertain penalty?
IIRC 95 would be dealt with as points and fine whereas 102 is ban territory. Would it simply be the average 98.5mph or is it down to interpretation by the magistrate?
If he is reported for driving at speeds between 95 and 102 for n metres how does the magistrate ascertain penalty?
IIRC 95 would be dealt with as points and fine whereas 102 is ban territory. Would it simply be the average 98.5mph or is it down to interpretation by the magistrate?
Madcop:
Thanks for your reply, very informative as usual.
I understand your explanation regarding the policeman not dropping the 102mph to 99mph, so will harp on about that no longer!
I do still think the policeman was being unreasonable for treating the 95mph and 102mph as two offences. This seems like massive overkill to me. Assumming that the descrption of the incident I gave is accurate (I understand that from your point of view they probably tend to be rather one-sided and perhaps a little far from the truth) would you have acted in the same way and what is your opinion on this aspect of the officer's behaviour?
I'm keeping my fingers crossed on behalf of my friend that you are correct when you state that the two offences may be treated as a single one. My worry is that the 95mph offence will be treated separately because it wasn't exceeding 100mph and hence doesn't requie a court appearance - is it possible that it will just be dealt with through normal 'paperwork channels' entirely separate to the court appearance?
Thanks.
Lee.
Thanks for your reply, very informative as usual.
I understand your explanation regarding the policeman not dropping the 102mph to 99mph, so will harp on about that no longer!
I do still think the policeman was being unreasonable for treating the 95mph and 102mph as two offences. This seems like massive overkill to me. Assumming that the descrption of the incident I gave is accurate (I understand that from your point of view they probably tend to be rather one-sided and perhaps a little far from the truth
) would you have acted in the same way and what is your opinion on this aspect of the officer's behaviour? I'm keeping my fingers crossed on behalf of my friend that you are correct when you state that the two offences may be treated as a single one. My worry is that the 95mph offence will be treated separately because it wasn't exceeding 100mph and hence doesn't requie a court appearance - is it possible that it will just be dealt with through normal 'paperwork channels' entirely separate to the court appearance?
Thanks.
Lee.
Expect a single charge of travelling between 95 and 102. Much fuss is made of being under 100 mph. No logic to it, too many other factors determine if getting banned or not, 99 or 101 is very very minor one.
Unclear on data logger issue, but is this a get out ? open to raising this in cross examination to cast doubt on the cop knowing what he was doing, or was doing it properly. Could be enough to cast reasonable doubt that the equipment was not being operated properly, therefore the results were unreliable, and the case should be dismissed. Was he concentratinig on the job in hand, or showing his trainee what to do.
Needs more info, but I'd be inclined to challenge it and see the cop in the witness box.
Unclear on data logger issue, but is this a get out ? open to raising this in cross examination to cast doubt on the cop knowing what he was doing, or was doing it properly. Could be enough to cast reasonable doubt that the equipment was not being operated properly, therefore the results were unreliable, and the case should be dismissed. Was he concentratinig on the job in hand, or showing his trainee what to do.
Needs more info, but I'd be inclined to challenge it and see the cop in the witness box.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff