The 'willing to go to jail to avoid speeding' thread |
The 'willing to go to jail to avoid speeding' thread |
Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 09:48
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,200 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 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Advertisement |
Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 09:48
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Thu, 3 Jan 2019 - 12:41
Post
#41
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,200 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 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 06:05
Post
#42
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,200 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 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 13:12
Post
#43
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Operation Pinocchio, they've got to get a prize for that.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 21 Jan 2019 - 15:05
Post
#44
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,200 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 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Mon, 21 Jan 2019 - 15:18
Post
#45
|
||||
Webmaster Group: Root Admin Posts: 8,205 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 __________________________________________________________________________
|
|||
|
||||
Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 17:01
Post
#46
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 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 |
|
|
Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 16:29
Post
#47
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,356 Joined: 30 Jun 2008 From: Landan Member No.: 20,731 |
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 |
|
|
Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 18:58
Post
#48
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,735 Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,720 |
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 -------------------- |
|
|
Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 19:02
Post
#49
|
||||
Webmaster Group: Root Admin Posts: 8,205 Joined: 30 Mar 2003 From: Wokingham, UK Member No.: 2 |
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 __________________________________________________________________________
|
|||
|
||||
Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 20:18
Post
#50
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 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 |
|
|
Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 22:19
Post
#51
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,333 Joined: 28 Mar 2014 From: Corby Member No.: 69,758 |
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? 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 |
|
|
Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 23:00
Post
#52
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
...... 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. |
|
|
Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 23:24
Post
#53
|
||||
Webmaster Group: Root Admin Posts: 8,205 Joined: 30 Mar 2003 From: Wokingham, UK Member No.: 2 |
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 __________________________________________________________________________
|
|||
|
||||
Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 23:33
Post
#54
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,356 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 |
|
|
Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 00:28
Post
#55
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
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. |
|
|
Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 01:25
Post
#56
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,333 Joined: 28 Mar 2014 From: Corby Member No.: 69,758 |
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) 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? 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 :/ |
|
|
Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 12:57
Post
#57
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
......….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. |
|
|
Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 17:26
Post
#58
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
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. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 18:00
Post
#59
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,570 Joined: 13 May 2010 Member No.: 37,524 |
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. |
|
|
Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 21:32
Post
#60
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,276 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 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Saturday, 30th March 2024 - 02:50 |