Another PCOJ |
Another PCOJ |
Sat, 17 Mar 2018 - 10:04
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 622 Joined: 20 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,668 |
https://www.minsterfm.com/news/local/252963...-a-speed-check/
A 55-year-old man from Bolton has appeared at Bradford Crown Court today (Friday 16 March 2018) and pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice and exceeding the speed limit. On Sunday 2 July 2017 at around 11.45am Geoffrey Alan Davies of Plodder Lane, Farnworth, Bolton was captured travelling at 86 miles per hour by a North Yorkshire Police camera van, whilst riding his Yamaha R1 motorbike along the B6479 at Selside near Ribblehead, a road with a 60 miles per hour limit. Davies realised that the safety camera van had captured him travelling over the specified limit, so before he reached the van he pulled his bike over and obscured the registration plate of his motorbike by wrapping a piece of black clothing over it, in an attempt to evade prosecution and prevent the camera from recording his details. TC Andy Forth from North Yorkshire Police Traffic Bureau undertook an extensive investigation and located and interviewed Davies. After initially denying the offence and disposing of the leathers he was wearing that day, Davies pleaded guilty to both the offence of exceeding the speed limit and perverting the course of justice. He appeared at Bradford Crown Court and was handed a nine month prison sentence, suspended for 12 months and ordered to carry out 150 hours unpaid work. He was also given 3 points on his licence and a £200 fine. Speaking about the investigation and court result, TC Andy Forth said; "Davies went to great length to evade justice – covering his number plate and disposing of his leathers, in the belief that North Yorkshire Police would not pursue the case. If he had faced the facts and held his hands up to the speeding offence, the matter would have been dealt with swiftly and he would of received three points on his licence and faced a £100 fine and the matter would have been over. Instead he has had to go through the criminal justice system and appear at Crown Court today, pleading guilty to charges of perverting the course of justice and exceeding the speed limit and received suspended prison sentence. North Yorkshire Police take the matter of perverting the course of justice incredibly seriously and will always investigate incidents like these and bring the matter before the courts. To behave in this manner is simply not acceptable.“ |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sat, 17 Mar 2018 - 10:04
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sat, 17 Mar 2018 - 10:33
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Some people really are their own worst enemy, how stupid could you get!
Wasn’t AndyRoo from Yorkshire as well? -------------------- 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 |
|
|
Sat, 17 Mar 2018 - 11:04
Post
#3
|
||||
Webmaster Group: Root Admin Posts: 8,205 Joined: 30 Mar 2003 From: Wokingham, UK Member No.: 2 |
Wasn’t AndyRoo from Yorkshire as well? Yes - North Yorkshire police again. -------------------- Regards,
Fredd __________________________________________________________________________
|
|||
|
||||
Sat, 17 Mar 2018 - 12:38
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,356 Joined: 30 Jun 2008 From: Landan Member No.: 20,731 |
If he was local, I suppose they could have just reviewed old footage from the area and found the registration that way...
--Churchmouse |
|
|
Sat, 17 Mar 2018 - 12:43
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 109 Joined: 4 Apr 2007 Member No.: 11,453 |
If he'd stopped and pushed the bike backwards away from the van until he was out of sight, would that also be PCoJ?
|
|
|
Sat, 17 Mar 2018 - 13:31
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
If he'd stopped and pushed the bike backwards away from the van until he was out of sight, would that also be PCoJ? Seeing as pushing your bike backwards is an "act" rather than mere inaction then likely so. After all it is almost unheard of for someone to push their bike backwards for considerable distance, and ultimately it would have the same effect as covering the numberplate. It would be difficult to create reasonable doubt that the biker had pushed the bike after an investigation had started (speed reading) for any other purposes than to evade prosecution. If he had time the biker would have been better just parking up at the side of the road. Then unless the operator approached the biker or real police could be bothered to turn up then he would likely have got away with it. |
|
|
Sat, 17 Mar 2018 - 16:18
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
I’m not wholly comfortable with the idea that covering up the number plate amounts to PCOJ. There’s no obligation to give the police any evidence against you (s 172 aside); what if he had simply turned down a side road? Would that be PCOJ too?
What crosses the line, in my view, is disposing of his clothes when he knew an investigation was likely. The covering up of the number plate seems like a red herring. I note the usual sermonising from the police. I don’t like it myself, particularly as they rarely recant following an acquittal on appeal. -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Sat, 17 Mar 2018 - 17:42
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,214 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
On Sunday 2 July 2017 at around 11.45am Geoffrey Alan Davies of Plodder Lane, Farnworth, Bolton was captured travelling at 86 miles per hour by a North Yorkshire Police camera van, whilst riding his Yamaha R1 motorbike along the B6479 at Selside near Ribblehead, a road with a 60 miles per hour limit. <...> Speaking about the investigation and court result, TC Andy Forth said; "Davies went to great length to evade justice – covering his number plate and disposing of his leathers, in the belief that North Yorkshire Police would not pursue the case. If he had faced the facts and held his hands up to the speeding offence, the matter would have been dealt with swiftly and he would of received three points on his licence and faced a £100 fine and 3 points for 86 in a 60? -------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
Sat, 17 Mar 2018 - 20:09
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,535 Joined: 16 Jan 2009 From: Up north Member No.: 25,505 |
I’m not wholly comfortable with the idea that covering up the number plate amounts to PCOJ. There’s no obligation to give the police any evidence against you (s 172 aside); what if he had simply turned down a side road? Would that be PCOJ too? Agree. You are not required to give evidence, but surely, to deliberately obscure/refuse, to give freely available evidence. Or rather to obscure evidence, which would have been freely available but for the actions of obstructing, must be considered an active action, and deliberate and therefore PCOJ What crosses the line, in my view, is disposing of his clothes when he knew an investigation was likely. The covering up of the number plate seems like a red herring. That is silly on the riders part I note the usual sermonising from the police. I don’t like it myself, particularly as they rarely recant following an acquittal on appeal. But surely the police are never wrong This post has been edited by oldstoat: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 - 20:10 -------------------- Bridges burnt, Rubicons crossed. Parthian shots delivered, but always with style
|
|
|
Sat, 17 Mar 2018 - 21:07
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
QUOTE to deliberately obscure/refuse, to give freely available evidence. Or rather to obscure evidence, which would have been freely available but for the actions of obstructing, must be considered an active action, and deliberate and therefore PCOJ The first part is wrong, otherwise every time I advise someone to refuse to answer questions in interview or not to consent to a search of their premises without a warrant I’m committing an offence. The second part I do agree with, as concealing evidence can amount to PCOJ. I’m just not convinced it does in these circumstances. The police are often wrong. -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Sun, 18 Mar 2018 - 11:01
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
As always I am interested to read your expertise SP but bearing in mind the primary evidence gathered from a camera van is
a) The speed of the vehicle. b) The VRM of the vehicle. I don't really understand why using a laser jammer and thus frustrating (a) could be seen as PCoJ/fabricating evidence but covering the numberplate and thus frustrating (b) wouldn't. Hiding evidence is an accepted form of PCoJ. It is different from turning down a side road because that is a normal action in the course of driving. Covering your numberplate is not something a normal driver would ever need to do and therefore the only reasonable explanation is that it was to prevent (b) being recorded. There is a legal obligation to display numberplates which inextricably links to S172, one is unlikely to follow without the other. |
|
|
Sun, 18 Mar 2018 - 17:12
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
I agree it’s in the grey area where opinions can rightly differ. The circumstances just don’t sit comfortably with me, although the conviction was rightly entered following a guilty plea, in my view primarily because of the destruction of the clothing, which is almost certainly PCOJ. If it was covering the plate alone I’m not sure I’d advise a guilty plea. It feels like an obstruction (as to which, see below) but couldn’t be charged as such because no constable was obstructed and there was the clothing element as well.
There’s settled case law that giving a false name to the police is obstruction not PCOJ - so where is the line drawn? I don’t think this case should set any form of precedent (in the non-legal sense of the word) as (a) it was a guilty plea and thus no argument was heard and (b) other actions definitely were PCOJ and ignoring those to say covering a number plate is PCOJ would be dangerous. -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Sun, 18 Mar 2018 - 18:29
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
If you don't mind me asking if you were defending a NG plea what would your skeleton argument be? Bearing in mind the percentage of bikers who crack along, if covering your numberplate was found not to be PCoJ would it not basically make them immune to camera vans?
Not that it should influence the judges, but that consequence and ensuing publicity would surely be at the back of their minds. |
|
|
Sun, 18 Mar 2018 - 19:00
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
If you don't mind me asking if you were defending a NG plea what would your skeleton argument be? A good question. Considering that where I am PCOJ is called something else and has a statutory basis and I’d cite local cases it would probably be very different to something I’d put forward in England. I think one would have to accept that covering a number plate can amount to an act intending to pervert the course of justice (assuming that was the only act, otherwise there’s little to argue) and working back from there to where the line exists between PCOJ and obstruction. A common law offence is often difficult because the court can make it apply when it wants it to apply, subject to any settled law from higher courts. There’s possibly an analogy to be drawn between the legal obligation to reply to a s 172 and a legal obligation to display a number plate. Sending back a completed but unsigned form is an offence (in England and Wales) under s 172 but nobody has said it’s PCOJ. So why is covering a plate? Both are acts intended to deny the police evidence. Needs more thought I think. QUOTE Bearing in mind the percentage of bikers who crack along, if covering your numberplate was found not to be PCoJ would it not basically make them immune to camera vans? Evidently not, as the above case shows. -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Sun, 18 Mar 2018 - 20:12
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 128 Joined: 26 Jan 2005 From: West Midlands, UK Member No.: 2,258 |
It has been a few years since i last drove down (up?) that road, but (IIRC) there are not that many places (if at all) where you could comfortably exceed the NSL for any significant time - let alone go nearly half as much again.
So it does seem to be a strange place to have a speed trap - unless there is more to this case than it initially appears? mb |
|
|
Sun, 18 Mar 2018 - 20:14
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
Would the fact that the act of covering the number plate was a deliberate attempt to prevent the camera van (operator) from getting his number as opposed to a general act with no intent be the difference for PCOJ ?
Not sure if I asked that correctly but say a biker had a muddy numberplate or a bag that obscured it and then blew through a speed trap, would that be PCOJ ? I'm by no means certain it would be any more then messing up an S172 would be. But giving false information such as a false name on an S172 is PCOJ |
|
|
Sun, 18 Mar 2018 - 20:34
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
A muddy numberplate would never be because PCoJ requires a positive act. Not washing your car is inaction, not an act.
Plus the act must take place after some sort of investigation has started. So here the speed was measured, and then the numberplate was obscured. If it was the other way around then unless the police could argue the investigation started as soon as they came into sight. It is why laser jammers are an interesting (to the outside observer) case because the positive action is taken before the investigation has started, the actual blocking of the laser is done automatically. Prosecutors seem to get around it by focusing on the alarm that sounds in the car, presumably implying the defendant is playing an active part in the system. Of course speed camera vans risk impending obsolescence anyway with the rise of apps which warn in real time of speed trap locations. Historically such endeavours were tolerated because they were always out of date, but now with a mobile you can learn about a camera before it has even been setup they may eventually get cold feet. FWIW I have one of the apps. I know the roads well enough to perfectly time slowing at camera van locations so it is really an academic exercise for me, but they seem very accurate and updated. They allow me to warm up my middle finger when on a pushbike though. |
|
|
Sun, 18 Mar 2018 - 22:30
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
A muddy numberplate would never be because PCoJ requires a positive act. Not washing your car is inaction, not an act.......... Putting mud on a number plate is an act. As is carefully obscuring the number plate with a bag. Or with a piece of clothing. To me the difference in this case is that it seemed a deliberate act that was taken after the camera van was seen and witnessed, probably filmed, by the operator. Otherwise would simply have been excused with "terribly sorry, guilty of failing to have a readable number plate but no intent to deceive" |
|
|
Mon, 19 Mar 2018 - 10:50
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 107 Joined: 23 Feb 2018 Member No.: 96,721 |
If you don't mind me asking if you were defending a NG plea what would your skeleton argument be? A good question. Considering that where I am PCOJ is called something else and has a statutory basis and I’d cite local cases it would probably be very different to something I’d put forward in England. I think one would have to accept that covering a number plate can amount to an act intending to pervert the course of justice (assuming that was the only act, otherwise there’s little to argue) and working back from there to where the line exists between PCOJ and obstruction. A common law offence is often difficult because the court can make it apply when it wants it to apply, subject to any settled law from higher courts. There’s possibly an analogy to be drawn between the legal obligation to reply to a s 172 and a legal obligation to display a number plate. Sending back a completed but unsigned form is an offence (in England and Wales) under s 172 but nobody has said it’s PCOJ. So why is covering a plate? Both are acts intended to deny the police evidence. Needs more thought I think. QUOTE Bearing in mind the percentage of bikers who crack along, if covering your numberplate was found not to be PCoJ would it not basically make them immune to camera vans? Evidently not, as the above case shows. The normal course of justice in this case would have been that the rider passed the van and the registration plate read. The keeper would then get a notice of intended prosecution and an s172 request. What occurred was the rider stopped, got hold of material and covered up the plate then rode past the camera. Is it unreasonable to conclude that the plate being covered up was for any other purpose than to prevent the police from identifying the vehicle and keeper? I can't think of another reason he would have done this that doesn't pervert the normal course of justice, that being the police identifying the vehicle. The prosecution can go ahead and the defendant and his advisor can convince the court of the reasonable excuse for the rider's actions, a reasonable excuse that evades me...and the rider in the case as it happens. Concealing the clothing came after the decision to investigate the pervert justice but I figure it did influence the advice the chap was given regarding his plea. So was the normal course of justice perverted when the number plate was covered up AND the rider rode past the camera with the plate concealed, of course it was. Whether the court would have found that is not tested but I can't see what reasonable grounds a jury would consider otherwise. Then again I have seen a jury opine that riding on one wheel of a motorcycle at 140mph on a country road at night isn't dangerous. The rider could have turned off the road prior to the vehicle reaching the point at which the video could see the plate. I can't see how that could be proven to be perverting justice and it happens quite often but that doesn't prevent it being possible that it was, it just makes it difficult to prove. Personally I would locate enforcement vehicles where this is not going to occur but that can't always be arranged. It can be on the road in this case though. This post has been edited by 122basy: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 - 10:53 |
|
|
Mon, 19 Mar 2018 - 14:02
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
You don't really understand the offence. The rider does not need to provide a reasonable excuse although this would be useful. They need to cast reasonable doubt that they did a positive action with the intent to pervert the course of justice.
Although I am minded that it is SP is quite right that there are situations, for instance giving a false plate after an accident, which would be more likely to be prosecuted as failure to give details. The issue is not that PCoJ is a possibility, more that if parliament has already created laws about displaying numberplate those should be equally considered. There is little point in creating specific legislation if prosecutors instead go for a catch all offence. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 08:17 |