PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

The 'willing to go to jail to avoid speeding' thread
The Rookie
post Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 09:48
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,525
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Maybe rather than keep starting posts we can put them into one as a warning to others

Two speeding events, not his van honest guvnor, jailed for 6 months.


And from the archives under the status of legendary
Andy Roo (ex of this parish)

Chris Huhne and the ex Mrs Huhne

And a future volunteer it seems

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 09:50


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
7 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 09:48
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 3 Jan 2019 - 12:41
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,525
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Money can't buy you common sense it seems!
Early admission seems to have got him off lightly, 3 months suspended for 2 years.

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/c...d-blame-2353785


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 06:05
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,525
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



And two more volunteers, one named an innocent party, the other gave fake details, both were very minor speeding offences
https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/17349478.tw...eding-offences/

And an interesting editorial comment that jailing them is pointless and they should just be made to pay for the investigation (in one case it's clear that would probably be at a fiver a week for life!)
https://www.crawleynews24.co.uk/lets-just-w...ding-and-lying/

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 06:06


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 13:12
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,044
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Operation Pinocchio, they've got to get a prize for that.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Mon, 21 Jan 2019 - 15:05
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,525
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Multiple speeding offences, multiple people blamed, multiple cases of PCoJ! !0 months suspended for 2 years, seems light compared to the Huhne sentence.

https://www.chichester.co.uk/news/crime/man...eding-1-8777823


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fredd
post Mon, 21 Jan 2019 - 15:18
Post #45


Webmaster
Group Icon

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 7,432
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wokingham, UK
Member No.: 2



At a guess, it was light because he fessed up to the PCoJ straight away.


--------------------
Regards,
Fredd

__________________________________________________________________________
Pepipoo relies on you
to keep this site running!
Donate to Pepipoo now using your
Visa, Mastercard, debit card or PayPal account
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 17:01
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,111
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



This one is of the "let's mount a jammer where the police can see it" school of thought.
3 months and £1,500 as a result.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-66...device-BMW.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 16:29
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,350
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 17:01) *
This one is of the "let's mount a jammer where the police can see it" school of thought.
3 months and £1,500 as a result.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-66...device-BMW.html

No indication in the Daily Fail (as per normal) as to what he did that had a tendency to pervert, and which was or was intended to pervert, the course of public justice, which had followed the occurence of an event from which it could reasonably have been expected that an investigation would follow.

Nor whether he was found guilty or (more likely) he had admitted the charges.

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 18:58
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,735
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 16:29) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 17:01) *
This one is of the "let's mount a jammer where the police can see it" school of thought.
3 months and £1,500 as a result.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-66...device-BMW.html

No indication in the Daily Fail (as per normal) as to what he did that had a tendency to pervert, and which was or was intended to pervert, the course of public justice, which had followed the occurence of an event from which it could reasonably have been expected that an investigation would follow.

Nor whether he was found guilty or (more likely) he had admitted the charges.

--Churchmouse


Presumably he either fitted or paid to have fitted the laser jammer.

There's at least a case or two a year of PCOJ charge when caught using a laser jammer by a speed camera.

This post has been edited by peterguk: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 19:00


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fredd
post Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 19:02
Post #49


Webmaster
Group Icon

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 7,432
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wokingham, UK
Member No.: 2



QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 16:29) *
No indication in the Daily Fail (as per normal) as to what he did that had a tendency to pervert, and which was or was intended to pervert, the course of public justice, which had followed the occurence of an event from which it could reasonably have been expected that an investigation would follow.

Nor whether he was found guilty or (more likely) he had admitted the charges.

--Churchmouse

He pleaded guilty. And since he was caught by virtue of causing a speed camera to generate an error code, it wouldn't have been that hard to make the case that it was PCoJ.


--------------------
Regards,
Fredd

__________________________________________________________________________
Pepipoo relies on you
to keep this site running!
Donate to Pepipoo now using your
Visa, Mastercard, debit card or PayPal account
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 20:18
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,111
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



I didn't think the Mail article was that bad, which is about as far I would go on defending them.
Didn't join all the dots maybe.

Police regard active interference with speed cameras as interfering with an investigation, ie interfering with the course of justice.... courts seem to agree.
A laser jammer, while other uses are possible is an active device that interferes with certain types of camera.
He had one fitted and was found from the footage when the camera generated an error.
Only thing the police had to do is prove was if it was deliberate for all the elements of PCOJ to be in place.
And likely he self incriminated within interviews regarding the deliberate part.
Even if he didn't, the court would be entitled to decide it was deliberate if there was no other reason for the device to be fitted, ie, that it wasn't simply being used to open automatic garage doors.
Not that the court needed to make that decision as he pled guilty.

This post has been edited by DancingDad: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 20:20
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
typefish
post Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 22:19
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,224
Joined: 28 Mar 2014
From: Corby
Member No.: 69,758



QUOTE (Fredd @ Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 19:02) *
And since he was caught by virtue of causing a speed camera to generate an error code, it wouldn't have been that hard to make the case that it was PCoJ.


Are there any other offences out there that result on a charge of PCoJ if someone chooses to not pay a [private] third party company for the privilege of sitting in a room with other willing occupants - even if what they were doing at the time was not an offence?

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 20:18) *
Police regard active interference with speed cameras as interfering with an investigation, ie interfering with the course of justice.... courts seem to agree.


What counts as an investigation? Is it an investigation into the conduct of that driver, or the conduct of everyone - and at what time? If someone didn't know that they were under investigation of a sexual offence and they washed their clothes, is that PCoJ?

Plus, if video footage is being kept, there's nothing to say that the video itself cannot be used to derive speed.

/rant

This post has been edited by typefish: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 22:28
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 23:00
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,111
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (typefish @ Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 22:19) *
......
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 20:18) *
Police regard active interference with speed cameras as interfering with an investigation, ie interfering with the course of justice.... courts seem to agree.


What counts as an investigation? Is it an investigation into the conduct of that driver, or the conduct of everyone - and at what time? If someone didn't know that they were under investigation of a sexual offence and they washed their clothes, is that PCoJ?

Plus, if video footage is being kept, there's nothing to say that the video itself cannot be used to derive speed.

/rant


Not a clue on the investigation logic, except that the courts seem to agree with the police viewpoint.
I suppose that the thoughts are that they are gathering evidence of crimes and that anyone interfering with that would be guilty, of that part at least.

There seems like a long history of police objecting to people interfering with speed traps.
Was that people were obstructing a police constable in the course of their duty (the Prevention of Crimes Amendment Act 1885.)
That ended AA patrolmen saluting members to warn of speed traps back in 1910. They stopped saluting instead when there were cops about, cannot be charged for inaction.
Drivers have been prosecuted under same act for flashing headlamps to warn other drivers.
But that charge does depend on it being a real copper with the camera and cannot be applied with civvie operators in a camera van or automatic cameras.
So the Old Bill have found another way.
Can't blame them in some cases.
One a motorcyclist who thought they had been clocked, stopped in full view of the van and covered their back number plate, then rode past.
Another a guy with a jammer drove past a camera at speed with hand and middle finger extended to the camera...that must have looked good when shown to the court.

As for calculating the speed, yes, possible but as a certain MP has just found, the speeding charge takes second place if you try to avoid it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fredd
post Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 23:24
Post #53


Webmaster
Group Icon

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 7,432
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wokingham, UK
Member No.: 2



QUOTE (typefish @ Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 22:19) *
QUOTE (Fredd @ Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 19:02) *
And since he was caught by virtue of causing a speed camera to generate an error code, it wouldn't have been that hard to make the case that it was PCoJ.


Are there any other offences out there that result on a charge of PCoJ if someone chooses to not pay a [private] third party company for the privilege of sitting in a room with other willing occupants - even if what they were doing at the time was not an offence?

What are you smoking? Whether it ultimately proceeds to prosecution, or whether the driver decides to accept their culpability and accept the offer of a course as an alternative, is irrelevant. The fact is that this twat was deliberately disrupting equipment that was being used to acquire evidence of drivers breaking the law. It certainly wasn't some innocent mistake.


--------------------
Regards,
Fredd

__________________________________________________________________________
Pepipoo relies on you
to keep this site running!
Donate to Pepipoo now using your
Visa, Mastercard, debit card or PayPal account
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 23:33
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,350
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



The devices apparently have legal uses, so it is not illegal to fit them to a vehicle. But in any case, as we have discussed many times before, the act that is PCoJ must follow the event which was or was likely to result in an investigation, so the fitting of the device could not have been PCoJ. I suppose the argument could have been that PCoJ act was the "use" of the device following the "event" of speeding (assuming they could prove the speeding without the defeated speed detection device), which was reasonably expected to result in an investigation.

The "middle finger" guy removed the jammer device from his car--that was an act following an event likely to be investigated. The biker covered his number plate--again, an act following the event. Maybe this guy did something like that?

“I advise anyone who may have a similar device fitted to their vehicle to think about the consequences of using such a device and strongly recommend that they remove it from their vehicle to avoid a future prosecution.”

If there had been the occurrence of an event, which it could reasonably have been expected that an investigation would follow, doing that would be PCoJ. Thanks, TC Forth.

This post has been edited by Churchmouse: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 23:34
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 00:28
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,111
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 23:33) *
The devices apparently have legal uses, so it is not illegal to fit them to a vehicle. But in any case, as we have discussed many times before, the act that is PCoJ must follow the event which was or was likely to result in an investigation, so the fitting of the device could not have been PCoJ. I suppose the argument could have been that PCoJ act was the "use" of the device following the "event" of speeding (assuming they could prove the speeding without the defeated speed detection device), which was reasonably expected to result in an investigation.

……...


I take your point on the legal uses and perhaps if someone could show that it was fitted for a legal purpose, to signal automatic doors on their garage for instance (one of the legal uses) they could have watered down the part of PCOJ that says it must be intentional, a deliberate act.
Otherwise it is a little like having a crowbar in your hand outside someone else's back door.
There are many legal reasons for having one but unless you are helping the owner break in it is difficult to think of one in that instance.
Going equipped is the charge in that case, not burglary as it has not happened but attempted burglary would be in the frame.
In that respect does it actually matter if speeding or not?
They fitted a metaphorical crowbar that automatically causes a laser speed device to fail, that is the crime, not actually speeding and I cannot see if before or after the event has any bearing.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
typefish
post Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 01:25
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,224
Joined: 28 Mar 2014
From: Corby
Member No.: 69,758



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 23:00) *
Can't blame them in some cases.

Indeed. I don't mind PCoJ being used when there is an actual attempt to pervert (not merely frustrate) the course of justice; to dispose of evidence (or hypothetically even re-activate ECU speed limiters on the QT)

QUOTE (Fredd @ Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 23:24) *
Whether it ultimately proceeds to prosecution, or whether the driver decides to accept their culpability and accept the offer of a course as an alternative, is irrelevant. The fact is that this **** was deliberately disrupting equipment that was being used to acquire evidence of drivers breaking the law. It certainly wasn't some innocent mistake.

I wasn't questioning its relevancy, I was more questioning the absurdity of the entire situation. A non-criminal resolution versus time in the clink - all because of a light source. You make an interesting point regarding disrupting equipment - just how far of a leap is it to jump from this to apps such as Waze, where one can - almost in real time - see where users have noticed enforcement activity?

Or dare I even say it, the suggestion of the 'unsigned' route?

QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 23:33) *
The devices apparently have legal uses, so it is not illegal to fit them to a vehicle. But in any case, as we have discussed many times before, the act that is PCoJ must follow the event which was or was likely to result in an investigation, so the fitting of the device could not have been PCoJ. I suppose the argument could have been that PCoJ act was the "use" of the device following the "event" of speeding (assuming they could prove the speeding without the defeated speed detection device), which was reasonably expected to result in an investigation.


Indeed. And then I come to remember that inchoate offences are a thing :/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 12:57
Post #57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,111
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (typefish @ Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 01:25) *
......….I wasn't questioning its relevancy, I was more questioning the absurdity of the entire situation. A non-criminal resolution versus time in the clink - all because of a light source. You make an interesting point regarding disrupting equipment - just how far of a leap is it to jump from this to apps such as Waze, where one can - almost in real time - see where users have noticed enforcement activity?
...

Fine lines often make a difference in law.
One is a deliberate attempt to avoid detection, the other is simply taking advantage of readily available information, no different to learning where the cameras are on a regular route.
Very difficult to prove any intent to break the law by using a phone or satnav device to show camera location.
A lot simpler when a device is fitted which seems to have the sole purpose of defeating speed cameras.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 17:26
Post #58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,044
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 12:57) *
A lot simpler when a device is fitted which seems to have the sole purpose of defeating speed cameras.

As I've mentioned previously, the solution is special paint that (incidentally) absorbs such radiation.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Korting
post Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 18:00
Post #59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,158
Joined: 13 May 2010
Member No.: 37,524



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 17:26) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 12:57) *
A lot simpler when a device is fitted which seems to have the sole purpose of defeating speed cameras.

As I've mentioned previously, the solution is special paint that (incidentally) absorbs such radiation.

I take it such special paint is not available from the likes of B&Q, Homebase or Wickes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Roverboy
post Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 21:32
Post #60


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,271
Joined: 4 Apr 2003
From: Northants
Member No.: 20



My beef with all of this is that courts / judges seem to treat someone trying to dodge a minor offense way more harshly than way more serious crimes such as muggings and burglary.

And I'm sure if some want examples I can find them.

This post has been edited by Roverboy: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 21:34


--------------------
Diesel, the fuel of the future......

Roverboy 2 Apcoa 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Tuesday, 18th June 2019 - 01:45
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.