Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

FightBack Forums _ News / Press Articles _ The 'willing to go to jail to avoid speeding' thread

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 09:48
Post #1390080

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

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/white-van-man-caught-speed-12687206


And from the archives under the status of legendary
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/bike-camera-speeding-ticket-465870

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/mar/11/chris-huhne-vicky-pryce

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=120916

Posted by: Jlc Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 10:20
Post #1390089

And the latest volunteer made a promising start with reasonable queries.

Posted by: southpaw82 Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 12:24
Post #1390136

I was tempted to use my Bluestone 42 meme but couldn’t be arsed from my phone.

Posted by: 122basy Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 16:43
Post #1390204

Mr Quas must have been the first member here to tempt the jailer:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/speed-cheat-trapped-by-web-boast-whbcqcwwwb8


Jammer case, jailed

https://northyorkshire.police.uk/news/man-jailed-for-perverting-the-course-of-justice-after-using-speed-detection-jammer/

Another Jammer, gulty

https://northyorkshire.police.uk/news/laser-jammer-driver-found-guilty-perverting-course-justice/

Jammer has a suspended sentnce on this occasion:
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/crime/sheffield-driver-caught-using-laser-jammer-device-to-dodge-speed-cameras-in-north-yorkshire-1-8836618

Posted by: DancingDad Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 20:35
Post #1390616

QUOTE (122basy @ Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 17:43) *
.....Jammer case, jailed...……...


Seems cars were dismantled to find the jammer in all the jammer cases ???

Seems a bit extreme to find a black box mounted on the bumper rolleyes.gif

Posted by: 122basy Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 21:17
Post #1390633

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 21:35) *
QUOTE (122basy @ Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 17:43) *
.....Jammer case, jailed...……...


Seems cars were dismantled to find the jammer in all the jammer cases ???

Seems a bit extreme to find a black box mounted on the bumper rolleyes.gif

Not really. The evidence needs to be recovered and the systems have more internal components than external...except for the LT400. Even then the LT400 has wiring, control and display within the vehicle. Unless you get the devices out with some form of magical power the vehicle needs to be dismantled.

Posted by: Tancred Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 22:06
Post #1390647

This one was a driving instructor who tried to present a modified GPS track to show he wasn't speeding:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-11938711

I think the thread is a good idea as there's clearly been quite a few people on here who don't understand how serious it is and don't understand the extreme reaction they get when they suggest it.

Posted by: 122basy Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 13:36
Post #1390811

QUOTE (Tancred @ Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 23:06) *
This one was a driving instructor who tried to present a modified GPS track to show he wasn't speeding:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-11938711

I think the thread is a good idea as there's clearly been quite a few people on here who don't understand how serious it is and don't understand the extreme reaction they get when they suggest it.

Oh forgot about Mr Richards.

http://www.eveshamjournal.co.uk/news/13347862.display/. This report is on the committal hearing but he was eventually convicted of 2 counts of perverting justice at Worcester Crown Court. The papers didn't seem interested in the case after the jury found him guilty. Same trick, fiddled with the GPS data that had been created after the speeding events.

Posted by: notmeatloaf Thu, 5 Jul 2018 - 19:23
Post #1396412

The GPS one always seems a strange one for me.

I know we have posters on here who think the police will accept a thirty second snippet and just say case closed.

My guess is they would ask for the entire journey as a complete piece of evidence. and suddenly you are falsifying a huge amount of data, with a corresponding huge number of ways for it to be proven incorrect.

It seems one of those things that is almost guaranteed not to work and equally guaranteed to be perfect evidence for PCoJ.

Posted by: typefish Thu, 5 Jul 2018 - 20:50
Post #1396431

QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Thu, 5 Jul 2018 - 20:23) *
My guess is they would ask for the entire journey as a complete piece of evidence. and suddenly you are falsifying a huge amount of data, with a corresponding huge number of ways for it to be proven incorrect literally handing the police every single instance of you speeding


Fixed...?

Posted by: The Rookie Fri, 6 Jul 2018 - 08:12
Post #1396482

https://leamingtonobserver.co.uk/news/speeding-ticket-scammers-sentenced-7322/

Summary, a couple made speeding offences 'go away' by arranging for keepers to name the wrong driver, the couple then replied as that person, innocent people were then convicted, not exactly a complex scam!

I wonder if any action is/was taken on the keepers.

Posted by: cp8759 Sat, 7 Jul 2018 - 16:52
Post #1396718

QUOTE (typefish @ Thu, 5 Jul 2018 - 21:50) *
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Thu, 5 Jul 2018 - 20:23) *
My guess is they would ask for the entire journey as a complete piece of evidence. and suddenly you are falsifying a huge amount of data, with a corresponding huge number of ways for it to be proven incorrect literally handing the police every single instance of you speeding


Fixed...?

GPS data would not be admissible as evidence of excess speed.

Posted by: The Rookie Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 20:46
Post #1397743

https://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/news/local-news/manager-caught-speeding-five-times-1769814
The truly bizarre! Fabricated a bizarre scenario including claiming to be blackmailed, seems to have got so caught up in his fabrication he didn’t know when to stop.

Posted by: DancingDad Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 14:40
Post #1397985

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 21:46) *
https://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/news/local-news/manager-caught-speeding-five-times-1769814
The truly bizarre! Fabricated a bizarre scenario including claiming to be blackmailed, seems to have got so caught up in his fabrication he didn’t know when to stop.

Weird.
One wonders what would have happened if the guy he put in the frame had not been in India ?

Posted by: The Rookie Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 19:46
Post #1401661

Happy to stitch up his Landlord who also has dementia, what a lovely guy....
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/speeding-driver-tried-blame-disabled-14930198

Posted by: samthecat Tue, 24 Jul 2018 - 10:19
Post #1401813

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 20:46) *
Happy to stitch up his Landlord who also has dementia, what a lovely guy....
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/speeding-driver-tried-blame-disabled-14930198


He is...

Did you not read what his barrister said:

"the dad-of-four is a "productive member of society" and stressed he pleaded guilty at the first opportunity"

I suppose he produced a certain amount of admin for the Courts and Police! As to pleading guilty at the first opportunity wouldn't that have been when he received the 172? tongue.gif

Posted by: The Rookie Tue, 24 Jul 2018 - 11:12
Post #1401831

Indeed, his Barrister seems to have glossed over the "He has a somewhat extensive history of offending." as noted by the prosecutor.

Posted by: DancingDad Tue, 24 Jul 2018 - 13:10
Post #1401859

I like the linked story.
Pretended to be his brother.
Worth 6 months in jail.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/uninsured-driver-caught-police-pretended-14702722

Posted by: ManxRed Tue, 24 Jul 2018 - 13:46
Post #1401879

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 24 Jul 2018 - 14:10) *
I like the linked story.
Pretended to be his brother.
Worth 6 months in jail.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/uninsured-driver-caught-police-pretended-14702722


It would have been a piece of p*ss to escape though.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6376929/Prisoner-pretended-to-be-twin-brother-to-escape.html

Posted by: Redivi Tue, 24 Jul 2018 - 15:14
Post #1401938

QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Thu, 5 Jul 2018 - 20:23) *
My guess is they would ask for the entire journey as a complete piece of evidence. and suddenly you are falsifying a huge amount of data, with a corresponding huge number of ways for it to be proven incorrect.


Dashcams store the most recent 4 to 8 hours and continually overwrite the oldest files unless they've been saved as events

By the time the police ask for the data for an entire journey, it will be long gone

They've asked me to retain a memory card in case it's needed for a prosecution and agreed that they'll disregard any other files

Posted by: peterguk Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 09:41
Post #1404619

THREE Bradford men, including a cab driver, have avoided immediate jail time, after admitting paying someone else to take care of a speeding fine for them.

The men, Mohammed Yasin, 57, Masawar Ali, 52, and Mohammed Banaras, 36, all passed off their notice of intended prosecution from the police to a third party, who filled out the form on their behalf.

But the police became suspicious when the same name, Sharjeel Jelani, cropped up on a number of forms, with different addresses – using similar handwriting. The real Mr Jelani faced magistrates’ court in two of the incidents, and received a county count judgment against his name for unpaid fines.


Yasin of Hastings Place, Ali, of Ambleside Avenue, and Banaras, of Westfield Road, all pleaded guilty to one count each of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and were sentenced to five months in prison, suspended for two years. They must also complete the maximum 300 hours of unpaid work in the next 12 months.

Prosecutor Jeremy Barton told Bradford Crown Court that the men, who did not know one another, had tried to “avoid prosecution” through the scheme, which had ended up affecting victim Mr Jelani’s finances and ability to insure a vehicle.

The men had been travelling between 30 and 40mph in 30 zones when they were caught by speed cameras.

Judge Colin Burn said it was a “blatant attempt to defraud road traffic enforcement and therefore the justice system”.

Nadim Bashir for Yasin, who was caught speeding on December 12, 2014, on the A6177, said he faced losing the car he used as a private hire driver if he got points on his licence, panicked and paid someone £150. Shufqat Khan for Ali, who was caught speeding on the A647, on April 21, 2015, said he had been concerned about the impact on his job at a tyre garage and paid someone £80 out of “sheer stupidity”. David Bradshaw for Banaras, who was caught speeding on Thornton Road on August 3, 2015, said it had been a “foolish act”.

http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/16395073.mohammed-yasin-masawar-ali-and-mohammed-banaras-sentenced-over-paying-someone-to-take-care-of-speeding-fine/?ref=mr&lp=3


Posted by: southpaw82 Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 10:31
Post #1404633

QUOTE (peterguk @ Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 10:41) *
and received a county count judgment against his name for unpaid fines.

rolleyes.gif

Posted by: The Rookie Tue, 14 Aug 2018 - 14:17
Post #1407966

Ok a bit more than speeding, and going to jail anyway, but lets throw petrol on the fire anyway!

Quote of the day goes to

QUOTE
Patrick Mason, prosecuting, said that during the pursuit on May 15, "if there was a traffic regulation, he broke it".


http://www.yeovilexpress.co.uk/news/16411824.eliot-kelly-of-taunton-avoids-jail-for-driving-offences-and-perverting-the-course-of-justice/

Posted by: peterguk Tue, 11 Sep 2018 - 11:24
Post #1415609

Business director, 58, tried to dodge a speeding fine by giving police a photo of an innocent man in CANADA who looked like her husband - but avoids jail so she can look after her family.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6140001/Business-director-58-tried-dodge-speeding-fine-giving-police-photo-innocent-man.html

Posted by: Ocelot Tue, 11 Sep 2018 - 18:55
Post #1415727

QUOTE (peterguk @ Tue, 11 Sep 2018 - 12:24) *
Business director, 58, tried to dodge a speeding fine by giving police a photo of an innocent man in CANADA who looked like her husband - but avoids jail so she can look after her family.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6140001/Business-director-58-tried-dodge-speeding-fine-giving-police-photo-innocent-man.html


Another example of a woman not going to jail when a man would.

Posted by: Jlc Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 18:22
Post #1423616

A new entry - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-45802293

QUOTE
A driver who tried to dodge a speeding fine by pretending to be his dead brother has been jailed.
Silburn Campbell, who has never passed his driving test, was clocked driving his mother's Mercedes at 37mph in a 30mph zone in 2014, Essex Police said.
Police received correspondence stating Kenneth Campbell was behind the wheel at the time of the offence, which was captured by a camera in Epping.
He "pleaded guilty" but it was later found he had died in 2001.
Essex Police wrote to the vehicle's registered keeper asking for the identity of the driver, and received responses stating it was Kenneth Campbell. Later, a guilty plea was entered by post.
The matter was heard in court in Kenneth Campbell's absence in March 2015, and he was given three penalty points and fined £150.
Several weeks later, police said Silburn Campbell posed as his dead brother and called the court asking for extra time to pay the fine.
But he gave his late brother's National Insurance number which confirmed he had died in February 2001.
Campbell, 54, of Elmer Road, Catford, in south-east London, denied completing the forms using his brother's details when he was interviewed by Essex Police.
But he did admit having a provisional driving licence and never passing his driving test.
He was charged with perverting the course of justice and pleaded guilty at Chelmsford Crown Court on 4 July.
Campbell was sentenced on 25 September at Basildon Crown Court to three months in prison.

Posted by: 666 Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 18:45
Post #1423619

QUOTE (Jlc @ Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 19:22) *
A new entry - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-45802293

QUOTE
A driver who tried to dodge a speeding fine by pretending to be his dead brother has been jailed.
Silburn Campbell, who has never passed his driving test, was clocked driving his mother's Mercedes at 37mph in a 30mph zone in 2014, Essex Police said.
Police received correspondence stating Kenneth Campbell was behind the wheel at the time of the offence, which was captured by a camera in Epping.
He "pleaded guilty" but it was later found he had died in 2001.
Essex Police wrote to the vehicle's registered keeper asking for the identity of the driver, and received responses stating it was Kenneth Campbell. Later, a guilty plea was entered by post.
The matter was heard in court in Kenneth Campbell's absence in March 2015, and he was given three penalty points and fined £150.
Several weeks later, police said Silburn Campbell posed as his dead brother and called the court asking for extra time to pay the fine.
But he gave his late brother's National Insurance number which confirmed he had died in February 2001.
Campbell, 54, of Elmer Road, Catford, in south-east London, denied completing the forms using his brother's details when he was interviewed by Essex Police.
But he did admit having a provisional driving licence and never passing his driving test.
He was charged with perverting the course of justice and pleaded guilty at Chelmsford Crown Court on 4 July.
Campbell was sentenced on 25 September at Basildon Crown Court to three months in prison.


So he’d got clean away, until he asked for time to pay. Genius!

Posted by: jdh Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 08:51
Post #1423725

QUOTE (666 @ Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 19:45) *
QUOTE (Jlc @ Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 19:22) *
A new entry - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-45802293

QUOTE
A driver who tried to dodge a speeding fine by pretending to be his dead brother has been jailed.
Silburn Campbell, who has never passed his driving test, was clocked driving his mother's Mercedes at 37mph in a 30mph zone in 2014, Essex Police said.
Police received correspondence stating Kenneth Campbell was behind the wheel at the time of the offence, which was captured by a camera in Epping.
He "pleaded guilty" but it was later found he had died in 2001.
Essex Police wrote to the vehicle's registered keeper asking for the identity of the driver, and received responses stating it was Kenneth Campbell. Later, a guilty plea was entered by post.
The matter was heard in court in Kenneth Campbell's absence in March 2015, and he was given three penalty points and fined £150.
Several weeks later, police said Silburn Campbell posed as his dead brother and called the court asking for extra time to pay the fine.
But he gave his late brother's National Insurance number which confirmed he had died in February 2001.
Campbell, 54, of Elmer Road, Catford, in south-east London, denied completing the forms using his brother's details when he was interviewed by Essex Police.
But he did admit having a provisional driving licence and never passing his driving test.
He was charged with perverting the course of justice and pleaded guilty at Chelmsford Crown Court on 4 July.
Campbell was sentenced on 25 September at Basildon Crown Court to three months in prison.


So he’d got clean away, until he asked for time to pay. Genius!
Which makes the "they're only in it for the money" argument appear stronger.

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 09:40
Post #1423746

Not really, it's just that when asked to submit relevant information to that request he gave the game away.

Posted by: The Rookie Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 12:44
Post #1431586

A quite laughable attempt this one!
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/man-awaits-sentencing-for-comical-bid-to-lie-way-out-of-speeding-charges-37494726.html

3 NIP's managed to commit PCOJ a total of 7 times for them, he's even worse at lying than driving it seems.

Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 8 Nov 2018 - 14:07
Post #1432264

And another, the old 'it was a foreign driver' routine..... multiple times.

https://www.inyourarea.co.uk/news/liar-sentenced-after-trying-to-avoid-speeding-fines/

2 years in this case.

Posted by: The Rookie Fri, 30 Nov 2018 - 11:38
Post #1438441

Gave a false name for 5 offences and then defended it in court, I think on that basis he got off lightly with an 8 months sentence.

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/tech-auto/automotive/company-director-jailed-after-caught-speeding-in-customised-white-range-rover-five-times-in-month/30/11/

Posted by: southpaw82 Fri, 30 Nov 2018 - 12:01
Post #1438450

QUOTE
PC Michael Martin from the City of London Police said: “This case shows how seriously we take traffic offences and that nobody is above the law.

“Serial offenders will be brought before the courts to face the consequences of their actions which can’t just be swept under the carpet.

“Speeding can endanger not just the driver’s life but also other law-abiding road users and will not be tolerated.

“Today’s sentencing illustrates just how severe your punishment can be, not only if you continuously break the speed limit, but also if you waste police time by providing false information and not owning up to your actions.

“Failure to comply with a request to identify the driver of a vehicle at the time of an offence, or giving false information, is viewed by the courts as an attempt to undermine the fundamental process of law, the repercussions of which Mr Khan is now realising.”


The usual holier than thou claptrap from the police I see.

1. He was not tried or sentenced for a traffic offence, so I don’t see the relevance of the seriousness or otherwise with which the COLP takes traffic offences.

2. Speeding may not be tolerated but again, he was not on trial for speeding.

3. He was not sentenced for speeding or wasting police time.

4. Failure to name the driver is not, so far as I know, viewed by the courts as an attempt to undermine the process of the law, neither was he sentenced for such.

Posted by: The Rookie Fri, 30 Nov 2018 - 12:20
Post #1438452

I agree (I'd read those and groaned), and of course all the robo 'copy and paste' reports are spewing the same. But then how often do you tell posters not to go to a Police officer for advice on the law!

Posted by: southpaw82 Fri, 30 Nov 2018 - 12:25
Post #1438457

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 30 Nov 2018 - 12:20) *
I agree (I'd read those and groaned), and of course all the robo 'copy and paste' reports are spewing the same. But then how often do you tell posters not to go to a Police officer for advice on the law!

About as often as I tell clients!

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 5 Dec 2018 - 08:27
Post #1439702

Rather than slowing down to avoid known cameras he chose to deface his front number plate to look like another....4 months suspended, rather over dramatised reporting though.

https://www.harrogateadvertiser.co.uk/news/crime/boroughbridge-man-changed-number-plate-to-dodge-speeding-fines-and-left-innocent-driver-to-take-blame-1-9476059


Posted by: cp8759 Wed, 5 Dec 2018 - 19:46
Post #1439911

£500 for getting a couple of incorrect NIPs? The chap in Plymouth must be laughing all the way to the bank!

Posted by: Redivi Wed, 5 Dec 2018 - 21:33
Post #1439942

£500 is a bit high but £200 would have been reasonable
After receiving two NIPs he would have been put to some inconvenience proving his car wasn't there and reporting the clone

Can that figure be used as a benchmark for data protection claims arising from PPC misreads and double-dips ?

Posted by: Richy320 Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 13:02
Post #1441382

But judge Paul Worsley QC ................ slammed the businessman for the “inconvenience” he had caused to a “wholly-innocent man who must have got the shock of his life” when he received the two speeding tickets.

So does this mean every time a motorist gets an erroneous speeding ticket from a "safety camera" they'll get a cheque for £500?

Thought not.

Posted by: The Rookie Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 13:04
Post #1441384

No, because there is no criminality as a cause. (plus it works out at £250/ticket anyway).

Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 3 Jan 2019 - 12:41
Post #1447100

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/count-alexy-kimmenade-tried-blame-2353785

Posted by: The Rookie Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 06:05
Post #1450043

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.two-sussex-drivers-jailed-for-lying-about-speeding-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-waste-more-money-on-imprisoning-people-for-speeding-and-lying/

Posted by: cp8759 Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 13:12
Post #1450848

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

Posted by: The Rookie Mon, 21 Jan 2019 - 15:05
Post #1453725

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-banned-from-roads-after-blaming-chichester-business-partner-for-speeding-1-8777823

Posted by: Fredd Mon, 21 Jan 2019 - 15:18
Post #1453731

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

Posted by: DancingDad Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 17:01
Post #1461075

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-6691991/Michael-Twizell-Dewsbury-jailed-tricking-speed-cameras-jamming-device-BMW.html

Posted by: Churchmouse Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 16:29
Post #1461470

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-6691991/Michael-Twizell-Dewsbury-jailed-tricking-speed-cameras-jamming-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

Posted by: peterguk Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 18:58
Post #1461517

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-6691991/Michael-Twizell-Dewsbury-jailed-tricking-speed-cameras-jamming-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.

Posted by: Fredd Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 19:02
Post #1461518

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 https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/bmw-driver-who-used-laser-jammer-on-yorkshire-road-jailed-for-perverting-course-of-justice-1-9588259. 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.

Posted by: DancingDad Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 20:18
Post #1461564

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.

Posted by: typefish Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 22:19
Post #1461627

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

Posted by: DancingDad Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 23:00
Post #1461646

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.

Posted by: Fredd Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 23:24
Post #1461654

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.

Posted by: Churchmouse Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 23:33
Post #1461658

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.

Posted by: DancingDad Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 00:28
Post #1461676

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.



Posted by: typefish Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 01:25
Post #1461678

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 :/

Posted by: DancingDad Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 12:57
Post #1461773

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.


Posted by: cp8759 Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 17:26
Post #1461893

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.

Posted by: Korting Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 18:00
Post #1461908

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.

Posted by: Roverboy Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 21:32
Post #1461981

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.

Posted by: southpaw82 Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 21:41
Post #1461985

QUOTE (Roverboy @ Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 21:32) *
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.

The courts don’t treat PCOJ as a minor offence though.

Posted by: cp8759 Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 23:42
Post #1462026

QUOTE (Korting @ Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 18:00) *
I take it such special paint is not available from the likes of B&Q, Homebase or Wickes.

No you'd have to get it from a car respray place I presume, once someone perfects it.

Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 14 Feb 2019 - 09:59
Post #1462076

Google ‘Vantablack’ but you’ll still have headlamps, number plate and a windscreen that will happily reflect, so the benefit of a ‘stealth’ paint job are probably marginal.

Posted by: Fredd Thu, 14 Feb 2019 - 10:55
Post #1462093

There's also the minor problem that if they suddenly found that their equipment couldn't get a reading from one of dozens they'd targeted during that session, you could expect a visit from plod just the same as if you'd used a jammer. And as Rookie says, there'll be returns from plenty of other parts of the vehicle, which'll just heighten their suspicions.

Posted by: typefish Thu, 14 Feb 2019 - 11:51
Post #1462112

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 12:57) *
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.


I'd say using something like Waze to figure out where police activity would be, especially when you know you may be over the drink drive limit, is pretty intentional

Posted by: cp8759 Thu, 14 Feb 2019 - 12:54
Post #1462152

QUOTE (Fredd @ Thu, 14 Feb 2019 - 10:55) *
There's also the minor problem that if they suddenly found that their equipment couldn't get a reading from one of dozens they'd targeted during that session, you could expect a visit from plod just the same as if you'd used a jammer. And as Rookie says, there'll be returns from plenty of other parts of the vehicle, which'll just heighten their suspicions.

They'd be hard-pressed to show that your car was coated in vantalack because you wanted to evade speed detection, rather than because it makes your car look cool. Thinking about it, it would look pretty cool.

Posted by: DancingDad Thu, 14 Feb 2019 - 14:21
Post #1462179

QUOTE (typefish @ Thu, 14 Feb 2019 - 11:51) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 12:57) *
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.


I'd say using something like Waze to figure out where police activity would be, especially when you know you may be over the drink drive limit, is pretty intentional

Like I said, fine lines of distinction.
May be intentional but proving it is a different matter.
If I use my satnav to navigate through country lanes is it an attempt to avoid the police or is it simply having a quiet and pleasant drive home?
You can see people on motorways speeding past and braking in time with when my satnav says there is a camera.... regular sight on the M6 in the VSL sections.
It is easy to see that they are flouting the speed limit and using onboard kit to brake in time for the cameras.
But proving it is with intent ? Or simply forgetting their speed and hit the brakes cos the gantry sign reminded them of the limit?
That satnavs have POI where cameras are reported or more real time systems like Waze allow someone to speed with a measure of impunity, they also have a function of reminding you what speed limits apply so can be argued they help drivers who may be a little inattentive to stay within the law.
Intent or just an added safety feature?




Posted by: jdh Thu, 14 Feb 2019 - 14:29
Post #1462183

QUOTE (typefish @ Thu, 14 Feb 2019 - 11:51) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 12:57) *
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.


I'd say using something like Waze to figure out where police activity would be, especially when you know you may be over the drink drive limit, is pretty intentional

One of my then-employees took a back road home from the pub, another car failed to give way at a junction and drove into the side of him. There was minimal damage, nothing more than a paint scuff on my employees vehicle but the other driver phoned the police to report the incident to get a number for the insurance claim. As luck would have it an officer was nearby and attended anyway, usual swapping of details and a quick "blow in the bag" and on their way except my employee blew over the limit. He was done for drink driving and became an ex-employee as a result.

Posted by: Fredd Thu, 14 Feb 2019 - 17:28
Post #1462261

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 14 Feb 2019 - 12:54) *
QUOTE (Fredd @ Thu, 14 Feb 2019 - 10:55) *
There's also the minor problem that if they suddenly found that their equipment couldn't get a reading from one of dozens they'd targeted during that session, you could expect a visit from plod just the same as if you'd used a jammer. And as Rookie says, there'll be returns from plenty of other parts of the vehicle, which'll just heighten their suspicions.

They'd be hard-pressed to show that your car was coated in vantalack because you wanted to evade speed detection, rather than because it makes your car look cool. Thinking about it, it would look pretty cool.

biggrin.gif
QUOTE (Surrey Nanosystems)
Can I apply Vantablack to my car?

Though this would undoubtedly result in an amazing looking motor, unfortunately the limitations of Vantablack in respect of direct impact or abrasion would make this an impractical proposition for most people. It would also be incredibly expensive.

Yes, very easy to explain away.

Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 14 Feb 2019 - 18:10
Post #1462280

It would however be ideal for visiting the restaurant at the end of the universe, you may even get it stolen from the parking lot........ ‘so black’ ‘that light just seems to fall into it’.......

Posted by: andy_foster Thu, 14 Feb 2019 - 19:27
Post #1462305

QUOTE (typefish @ Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 22:19) *
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?


Presumably the point that you are seeking to make is that we perhaps ought to be aware of the apparent irony that many motorists openly avoid prosecution by paying private companies for speed awareness courses, which have no basis in law, and that the police take a £35 cut from them, but when a motorist seeks to avoid liability for his crimes using his own scam, not endorsed by the police and not funding 'jobs for the boys', then he is a serious criminal?

I would however like to believe that no matter how fundamentally corrupt I might consider the application of speed awareness courses to be, the police's view was that the motorist in this case perverted the course of justice, rather than that the cheeky sod tried to diddle them out of 'their' £35. Also, taking your post as it was written, motorists are entitled not to pay the 'bribe' requested by the police, but if they do not take the course they are liable to be processed on a manner with actual basis in law, such as an offer of a fixed penalty or prosecution for the motoring offence.

Posted by: cp8759 Fri, 15 Feb 2019 - 16:50
Post #1462525

QUOTE (Fredd @ Thu, 14 Feb 2019 - 17:28) *
QUOTE (Surrey Nanosystems)
Can I apply Vantablack to my car?

Though this would undoubtedly result in an amazing looking motor, unfortunately the limitations of Vantablack in respect of direct impact or abrasion would make this an impractical proposition for most people. It would also be incredibly expensive.

Yes, very easy to explain away.

Give it a few years, technology will improve, prices will come down...

Posted by: Fredd Fri, 15 Feb 2019 - 17:26
Post #1462539

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 15 Feb 2019 - 16:50) *
Give it a few years, technology will improve, prices will come down...

Seems optimistic given the glacial progress in developing IR absorbent coatings over the last 30 years or so. By the time this stuff becomes viable for such trivial applications as defeating laser speed guns we'll all be driving cars that automatically obey speed limits, with no override, anyway.

Posted by: cp8759 Fri, 15 Feb 2019 - 17:59
Post #1462548

QUOTE (Fredd @ Fri, 15 Feb 2019 - 17:26) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 15 Feb 2019 - 16:50) *
Give it a few years, technology will improve, prices will come down...

Seems optimistic given the glacial progress in developing IR absorbent coatings over the last 30 years or so. By the time this stuff becomes viable for such trivial applications as defeating laser speed guns we'll all be driving cars that automatically obey speed limits, with no override, anyway.

I refer you once more to VRM AB 171. Just because manufacturers keep creating more and more stupid features (such as electronic handbrakes), does not mean I'll ever drive one.

Posted by: jdh Mon, 25 Feb 2019 - 16:56
Post #1465122

https://www.spaldingtoday.co.uk/news/six-month-jail-term-for-man-speeding-in-spalding-9062871/

He was jailed for six months and banned from driving for 15 months.

Recorder Jacob Hallam, passing sentence, told him "When you were stopped by the police you chose to lie and gave a false name.

Posted by: The Rookie Mon, 25 Feb 2019 - 18:02
Post #1465158

Without trying to get myself into hot water, is it just me that thinks that the minority ethnicity’s are over represented in these cases? Certainly they are not the only ones but the numbers seem disproportionate with the total populations.

Posted by: Fredd Mon, 25 Feb 2019 - 19:11
Post #1465185

Sampling bias?

I really don't know, but in the absence of more rigorous analysis I'd be reluctant to assume that the media present a statistically sound impression of the racial prevalence of this kind of behaviour.

Posted by: The Rookie Mon, 25 Feb 2019 - 20:32
Post #1465230

Possibly, I’m certainly emphasising that this is based on reported cases.

Posted by: The Rookie Tue, 26 Feb 2019 - 10:00
Post #1465373

And another
4 month suspended, 31 year old claimed a (probably fictitious) Indian friend was driving. Was on 9 points so perhaps that lead her to the brain fart.
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/recruitment-consultants-suspended-jail-sentence-1587159

I tried avoiding using the Daily Fail copy.....but it has a bit more info
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6743843/Recruitment-consultant-claimed-friend-India-driving-speeding-car-spared-jail.html

Plead guilty so presumably sentence was discounted from 6 months making Onasanya's sentence seem even further out of kilter.

Posted by: DancingDad Tue, 26 Feb 2019 - 10:05
Post #1465375

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 26 Feb 2019 - 10:00) *
...….Plead guilty so presumably sentence was discounted from 6 months making Onasanya's sentence seem even further out of kilter.

Onasanya is being released after 28 days I see.... some sort of early release scheme.
Which makes her three months even more risable.

Posted by: The Rookie Tue, 26 Feb 2019 - 10:35
Post #1465386

The early release is standard for all sentences (assuming they do nothing wrong in jail), she'll be on Parole with strict conditions for the rest of the sentence.

Posted by: DancingDad Tue, 26 Feb 2019 - 10:52
Post #1465390

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 26 Feb 2019 - 10:35) *
The early release is standard for all sentences (assuming they do nothing wrong in jail), she'll be on Parole with strict conditions for the rest of the sentence.


I must be out of touch.
I knew that release after 2/3rds of sentence (parole and conditions etc applied) was normal.
But 1/3rd ????

Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 26 Feb 2019 - 13:40
Post #1465477

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 26 Feb 2019 - 10:35) *
The early release is standard for all sentences (assuming they do nothing wrong in jail), she'll be on Parole with strict conditions for the rest of the sentence.

According to https://www.gov.uk/leaving-prison

If the prisoner has a fixed term (determinate) sentence
A prisoner serving a determinate sentence is normally released automatically halfway through their sentence.

If their sentence is 12 months or more, they’ll be released on probation.


How she got away with only serving 28 days I'm not really sure. I also take it she won't be on probation, but may be recalled to prison if she offends again.

Posted by: big_mac Tue, 26 Feb 2019 - 14:20
Post #1465489

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 26 Feb 2019 - 13:40) *
How she got away with only serving 28 days I'm not really sure. I also take it she won't be on probation, but may be recalled to prison if she offends again.

Home Detention Curfew for the rest.
Huhne and Price had the same, after 1/4 of their sentence.

Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 26 Feb 2019 - 20:13
Post #1465607

QUOTE (big_mac @ Tue, 26 Feb 2019 - 14:20) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 26 Feb 2019 - 13:40) *
How she got away with only serving 28 days I'm not really sure. I also take it she won't be on probation, but may be recalled to prison if she offends again.

Home Detention Curfew for the rest.
Huhne and Price had the same, after 1/4 of their sentence.

Does she get an exemption if there's an all-night debate in Parliament?

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 6 Mar 2019 - 03:46
Post #1468005

Taxi driver used a dead mans details twice (one speeding, one RLC).

I kind of like the Judges approach here of remanding in custody for a short time (so he gets some experience of a jail) and then suspending the sentence (2x2 months to run consecutively).
https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/local-news/taxi-driver-tried-dodge-points-2600582

Posted by: Mono Thu, 14 Mar 2019 - 13:51
Post #1470863

Two for one here

https://www.cumbria.police.uk/News/News-Articles/2019/March/Man-jailed-for-perverting-the-course-of-justice-over-speeding-offence.aspx

Can't find any more detail, but they must have been charged with something else as well as you can't get a driving ban for PCOJ.

Posted by: southpaw82 Thu, 14 Mar 2019 - 14:47
Post #1470882

QUOTE (Mono @ Thu, 14 Mar 2019 - 13:51) *
Two for one here

https://www.cumbria.police.uk/News/News-Articles/2019/March/Man-jailed-for-perverting-the-course-of-justice-over-speeding-offence.aspx

Can't find any more detail, but they must have been charged with something else as well as you can't get a driving ban for PCOJ.

You can be banned for any offence under s 146 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.

Posted by: Mono Thu, 14 Mar 2019 - 15:07
Post #1470892

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 14 Mar 2019 - 14:47) *
You can be banned for any offence under s 146 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.

Everyday's a school day!

Posted by: DancingDad Thu, 14 Mar 2019 - 20:29
Post #1470995

QUOTE (Mono @ Thu, 14 Mar 2019 - 13:51) *
Two for one here

https://www.cumbria.police.uk/News/News-Articles/2019/March/Man-jailed-for-perverting-the-course-of-justice-over-speeding-offence.aspx

Can't find any more detail, but they must have been charged with something else as well as you can't get a driving ban for PCOJ.

One assumes it was a case of asking a mate to take the points and mate saying yes.

Posted by: The Rookie Fri, 29 Mar 2019 - 12:01
Post #1474527

We may soon have some more for the wall of infamy
http://smarthighways.net/arrests-made-over-speed-camera-tampering/
3 arrested for using laser jammers (not sure I'd use the headline speed camera tampering although its not actually incorrect I guess).

Posted by: DancingDad Fri, 29 Mar 2019 - 21:11
Post #1474669

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 29 Mar 2019 - 12:01) *
We may soon have some more for the wall of infamy
http://smarthighways.net/arrests-made-over-speed-camera-tampering/
3 arrested for using laser jammers (not sure I'd use the headline speed camera tampering although its not actually incorrect I guess).

Unusual for the Press but I'd have said correct, strictly speaking it is the speed camera tampering that is the reason for PCOJ.

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 3 Apr 2019 - 10:55
Post #1475611

Not speeding but careless driving.

The reporting isn't 100% clear but it appears she was convicted of that offence and impersonating a police office (at the scene - lie one).

This lead to an appeal (on what basis sin't clear) where she used a forged letter from a GP as part of defence/mitigation (lie two).

Once it was realised it was forged she then tried to claim the forgery was perpetrated by someone else at the surgery (lie three).

Convicted of PCOJ for forging and presenting that letter.
Got away with 12 months suspended for 2 years.
https://www.timesandstar.co.uk/news/17539089.mum-who-forged-doctors-letter-narrowly-avoids-jail/

The reporting of the original hearing for careless and impersonating.
https://www.timesandstar.co.uk/news/17013776.fine-for-woman-who-pretended-to-be-police-officer/

Posted by: The Rookie Fri, 5 Apr 2019 - 05:01
Post #1476066

Another laser jammer case,North Yorks Police stating they have seen a significant increase in use.

2 months (not suspended), seems that 2 months is the new 9 months! (sentence after a guilty plea)

https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/17552000.ferrari-salesman-nicholas-burke-jammed-speed-camera-with-laser-device/

Police press release
https://northyorkshire.police.uk/news/jail-for-former-supercar-salesman-who-tried-to-use-laser-jammer-to-dodge-speeding-fines/

Posted by: southpaw82 Fri, 5 Apr 2019 - 14:27
Post #1476186

North Yorks seem very keen on PCOJ for jammers and the like. They seem a bit like Cumbria and the use of this forum.

Posted by: Churchmouse Sat, 6 Apr 2019 - 13:45
Post #1476404

However, they've also done a good job of proving to the public that they work.

I'm sure fitting a speed measurement jamming device is (and should be) somehow illegal, but PCoJ relates to acts undertaken after a potential enforcement event, so it is not clear to me why they thought they had a strong case against this motorist. It may be that the driver did something after the event in question, but this has not been reported in the links above.

--Churchmouse

Posted by: DancingDad Sat, 6 Apr 2019 - 15:04
Post #1476421

QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Sat, 6 Apr 2019 - 14:45) *
However, they've also done a good job of proving to the public that they work.

I'm sure fitting a speed measurement jamming device is (and should be) somehow illegal, but PCoJ relates to acts undertaken after a potential enforcement event, so it is not clear to me why they thought they had a strong case against this motorist. It may be that the driver did something after the event in question, but this has not been reported in the links above.

--Churchmouse


We've had this discussion before in this thread http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=120923&view=findpost&p=1461564

Posted by: Churchmouse Sat, 6 Apr 2019 - 19:19
Post #1476475

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sat, 6 Apr 2019 - 16:04) *
QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Sat, 6 Apr 2019 - 14:45) *
However, they've also done a good job of proving to the public that they work.

I'm sure fitting a speed measurement jamming device is (and should be) somehow illegal, but PCoJ relates to acts undertaken after a potential enforcement event, so it is not clear to me why they thought they had a strong case against this motorist. It may be that the driver did something after the event in question, but this has not been reported in the links above.

--Churchmouse


We've had this discussion before in this thread http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=120923&view=findpost&p=1461564

We have, but we don't really know what the driver was accused of doing. Neither the police nor the newspaper seem very concerned about establishing (or revealing) the facts. This was another guilty plea, wasn't it? Yes. No need to prove the allegation in court if they plead guilty.

--Churchmouse

Posted by: DancingDad Sat, 6 Apr 2019 - 20:03
Post #1476487

QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Sat, 6 Apr 2019 - 20:19) *
......….We have, but we don't really know what the driver was accused of doing. Neither the police nor the newspaper seem very concerned about establishing (or revealing) the facts. This was another guilty plea, wasn't it? Yes. No need to prove the allegation in court if they plead guilty.

--Churchmouse

We are never going to see a legal decision from a court with a guilty plea in the equation.
Or much of an explanation from the police except the solemnly delivered adages about treating speeding and those who seek to avoid justice seriously.
Personally I don't see that the culprit has to have done anything except fit a device that can jam speed measurements without good reason.
The police/CPS go into court saying that they believe the intent was to interfere with equipment and thus evade speed limits and lawful enforcement.
Accused is on the back foot without good reason and police stance will be that there is no lawful reason for it to be fitted therefore intent is obvious.
They must prove intent but I cannot see that beyond reasonable doubt is not achievable.


Posted by: southpaw82 Sat, 6 Apr 2019 - 21:36
Post #1476512

Intent can be inferred.

Posted by: DancingDad Sun, 7 Apr 2019 - 10:07
Post #1476581

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 6 Apr 2019 - 22:36) *
Intent can be inferred.



Ta.
Wasn't too sure how far inferred would take it but cannot see why it would not be if nothing was produced to show an alternative, legal use.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sun, 7 Apr 2019 - 10:51
Post #1476594

What's the difference between a burglar running away to prevent being caught and someone fitting a scanner to prevent being caught?

Posted by: southpaw82 Sun, 7 Apr 2019 - 11:15
Post #1476600

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 7 Apr 2019 - 11:07) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 6 Apr 2019 - 22:36) *
Intent can be inferred.



Ta.
Wasn't too sure how far inferred would take it but cannot see why it would not be if nothing was produced to show an alternative, legal use.

It’s s 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967

QUOTE
A court or jury, in determining whether a person has committed an offence,—
(a) shall not be bound in law to infer that he intended or foresaw a result of his actions by reason only of its being a natural and probable consequence of those actions; but

(b) shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence, drawing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances.


So long as the court is sure that the defendant had the necessary intent by looking at the circumstances the intent can be proven. This is where a “no comment” interview can bite you in the bum.

Posted by: notmeatloaf Sun, 7 Apr 2019 - 15:18
Post #1476640

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sun, 7 Apr 2019 - 11:51) *
What's the difference between a burglar running away to prevent being caught and someone fitting a scanner to prevent being caught?

In general, PCoJ isn't meant to be an alternative to an aggravating factor of the original offence.

With laser jammers, you haven't made the speeding offence worse, so you can't just receive a more severe sentence for that. You've committed two separate offences - PCoJ has come to light as a result of speeding, but neither is an aggravating factor for the other.

E.g if you were driving at 5mph over the limit versus 100mph over the limit, it wouldn't aggravate PCoJ unless, possibly, the prosecution could show you routinely drive at high speeds and so the PCoJ was to potentially avoid charges more serious than speeding.

Posted by: Churchmouse Mon, 8 Apr 2019 - 10:19
Post #1476729

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sat, 6 Apr 2019 - 21:03) *
QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Sat, 6 Apr 2019 - 20:19) *
......….We have, but we don't really know what the driver was accused of doing. Neither the police nor the newspaper seem very concerned about establishing (or revealing) the facts. This was another guilty plea, wasn't it? Yes. No need to prove the allegation in court if they plead guilty.

--Churchmouse

We are never going to see a legal decision from a court with a guilty plea in the equation.
Or much of an explanation from the police except the solemnly delivered adages about treating speeding and those who seek to avoid justice seriously.
Personally I don't see that the culprit has to have done anything except fit a device that can jam speed measurements without good reason.
The police/CPS go into court saying that they believe the intent was to interfere with equipment and thus evade speed limits and lawful enforcement.
Accused is on the back foot without good reason and police stance will be that there is no lawful reason for it to be fitted therefore intent is obvious.
They must prove intent but I cannot see that beyond reasonable doubt is not achievable.

It's not the intent that I have a problem with; it is the timing issue. If someone fitted a laser jammer and never drove anywhere, they would never commit PCoJ, because the offence requires a "course of justice" to have been initiated--prior to an act to "pervert" it. I am aware that "fitting a laser jammer" is almost the classic example of PCoJ in road traffic cases (apart from the "take the points" scenario), but I have yet to see the facts laid out in a way that squares with the wording of the offence. Indeed, the CPS guidelines seem to support my view that the course of justice refers to a particular investigation.

A course of justice is “... conduct which relates to judicial proceedings, civil or criminal, whether or not they have yet been instituted but which are within the contemplation of the wrong-doer whose conduct was designed to affect the outcome of them. That conduct includes giving false information to the police with the object of among other things putting the police on a false trail ...” R v Selvage and Morgan [1982]

I don't think the enforcement of speeding laws--even in the general climate of suspicion in which all motorists are viewed as potential criminals these days--could be considered a "course of justice" under that definition. It could be argued that "using" an already fitted device constitutes the "act" intended to pervert the course of justice (whenever the vehicle happens to be driven in a manner that could result in a criminal investigation in the future), and if someone has been convicted of PCoJ in court after a trial, I'd bet that was the prosecution's argument, but I have yet to see this confirmed in writing.

Posted by: typefish Mon, 8 Apr 2019 - 13:17
Post #1476759

QUOTE (CPS Guidance)
The offence of Perverting the Course of Justice is committed when an accused:
  • does an act or series of acts;
  • which has or have a tendency to pervert; and
  • which is or are intended to pervert;
  • the course of public justice.

QUOTE (CPS Guidance)
The course of justice must be in existence at the time of the act(s). The course of justice starts when:
  • an event has occurred, from which it can reasonably be expected that an investigation will follow;
  • investigations which could/might bring proceedings have actually started; or
  • proceedings have started or are about to start.


To me this reads that throwing away the jammer/shifter would be illegal (as we'd all expect) - as if you're using it in the vicinity of a lidar-type speed detection device, there's almost a 100% certainty of someone with no sense of humour feeling rather put out and giving a call to their colleagues.

But as I'm sure I've asked before, what counts as an investigation? I presume for any PCOJ charge to be successful, it would mean that everyone who is in the beam of a lidar device is immediately under investigation.

Right?

Posted by: southpaw82 Mon, 8 Apr 2019 - 13:29
Post #1476763

QUOTE (typefish @ Mon, 8 Apr 2019 - 14:17) *
But as I'm sure I've asked before, what counts as an investigation? I presume for any PCOJ charge to be successful, it would mean that everyone who is in the beam of a lidar device is immediately under investigation.

Right?

Pretty much.

Posted by: DancingDad Mon, 8 Apr 2019 - 14:07
Post #1476775

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Mon, 8 Apr 2019 - 14:29) *
QUOTE (typefish @ Mon, 8 Apr 2019 - 14:17) *
But as I'm sure I've asked before, what counts as an investigation? I presume for any PCOJ charge to be successful, it would mean that everyone who is in the beam of a lidar device is immediately under investigation.

Right?

Pretty much.



As many of these seem to stem from driving past a camera, the police more then likely have photos to prove the investigation as well.

Posted by: Churchmouse Tue, 9 Apr 2019 - 15:52
Post #1477017

QUOTE (typefish @ Mon, 8 Apr 2019 - 14:17) *
QUOTE (CPS Guidance)
The offence of Perverting the Course of Justice is committed when an accused:
  • does an act or series of acts;
  • which has or have a tendency to pervert; and
  • which is or are intended to pervert;
  • the course of public justice.

QUOTE (CPS Guidance)
The course of justice must be in existence at the time of the act(s). The course of justice starts when:
  • an event has occurred, from which it can reasonably be expected that an investigation will follow;
  • investigations which could/might bring proceedings have actually started; or
  • proceedings have started or are about to start.


To me this reads that throwing away the jammer/shifter would be illegal (as we'd all expect) - as if you're using it in the vicinity of a lidar-type speed detection device, there's almost a 100% certainty of someone with no sense of humour feeling rather put out and giving a call to their colleagues.

But as I'm sure I've asked before, what counts as an investigation? I presume for any PCOJ charge to be successful, it would mean that everyone who is in the beam of a lidar device is immediately under investigation.

Right?

I agree; the investigation begins when the LASER hits the vehicle (or the "speeding" vehicle comes into view of the "investigator", I suppose, if you want to be a stickler). Which is why, in my view, the act of fitting the device, prior to any enforcement or investigation having occurred, does not really seem to fit into the definition of the offence of PCoJ.

--Churchmouse

Posted by: Fredd Tue, 9 Apr 2019 - 17:47
Post #1477035

QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Tue, 9 Apr 2019 - 16:52) *
Which is why, in my view, the act of fitting the device, prior to any enforcement or investigation having occurred, does not really seem to fit into the definition of the offence of PCoJ.

What does that have to do with this particular news item, then?

Posted by: DancingDad Wed, 10 Apr 2019 - 11:55
Post #1477160

QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Tue, 9 Apr 2019 - 16:52) *
.........I agree; the investigation begins when the LASER hits the vehicle (or the "speeding" vehicle comes into view of the "investigator", I suppose, if you want to be a stickler). Which is why, in my view, the act of fitting the device, prior to any enforcement or investigation having occurred, does not really seem to fit into the definition of the offence of PCoJ.

--Churchmouse

Probably better debating in the flame pit.
Being as at least some of these cases seem to have occurred after the device was spotted going through a speed trap, a little academic for those at least.
There was an event during an investigation, presumably proof and seemingly a guilty plea.

I would agree with you that fitting one does not automatically make it PCOJ but, as I have said before, anyone spotted with one on the road is on the back foot.
What other reason is it fitted for except with the intent to avoid being spotted speeding by a laser gun ?
The investigation you desire is ongoing, speed cameras are like fleas on a cat, live 24/7 all over the country.
Someone could easily show lack of intent if, for instance the device was not live, only triggered with a button and was (ostensibly) being used to open automatic garage doors.
But drive through a speed trap with the device live and that defence is also easily questioned.
Or if the automatic garage doors do not exist.

Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 11 Apr 2019 - 17:18
Post #1477503

Not a press article but one from our forums
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=126710&st=0

Motorcyclist covered up his plate after being recorded speeding, 4 months suspended for 2 years following a failed defence attempt.

Posted by: The Rookie Mon, 29 Apr 2019 - 11:21
Post #1481341

4 months for PCOJ for giving his own brother's details when stopped (disqualified, no insurance)
Also 4 months for driving while disqualified (again!).
https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/banned-driver-gave-brothers-name-16192404

Posted by: notmeatloaf Mon, 29 Apr 2019 - 21:22
Post #1481544

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 29 Apr 2019 - 12:21) *
4 months for PCOJ for giving his own brother's details when stopped (disqualified, no insurance)
Also 4 months for driving while disqualified (again!).
https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/banned-driver-gave-brothers-name-16192404

"He said his client suffered from acute sleep apnoea which meant that he stopped breathing on occasions, a condition which would be difficult to manage in custody."

Oh, prison nurses can manage all sorts. "Here's a CPAP machine... enjoy."

Worst excuse ever, not even some guff about turning around his life.

Posted by: cp8759 Mon, 29 Apr 2019 - 23:00
Post #1481570

Well done to the judge for giving him consecutive, rather than concurrent sentences.

Posted by: DancingDad Tue, 30 Apr 2019 - 09:26
Post #1481612

Not a PCOJ or jail but a rare (AFAIK) case of a council PCN getting someone into court and a fine resulting.
So perhaps deserves mention in this thread.
Woman falsifies a parking P&D ticket, cops a PCN and vehicle was removed by council.
Then she continues to c0ck it all up to the point where council pass it to police.
Who treat the P&D alteration as fraud.
£440 quid fine and £340 costs to save 9 quid on a parking fee.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6971673/Portsmouth-paralegal-Malikah-Richards-tries-fool-parking-wardens-Tipp-Ex-pays-800-fine.html

Posted by: southpaw82 Tue, 30 Apr 2019 - 10:56
Post #1481650

I don’t see what the relevance of her employment has to the matter, especially as she committed the offence before she was employed.

Posted by: DancingDad Tue, 30 Apr 2019 - 11:38
Post #1481663

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Tue, 30 Apr 2019 - 11:56) *
I don’t see what the relevance of her employment has to the matter, especially as she committed the offence before she was employed.


Daily Fail attention grabber biggrin.gif
Considering she seems to have also defaulted on a payment plan after the removal plus another 22 PCNs outstanding, does anyone else get the feeling there will be many more tears before this story is completed.

Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 30 Apr 2019 - 12:13
Post #1481677

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Tue, 30 Apr 2019 - 11:56) *
I don’t see what the relevance of her employment has to the matter, especially as she committed the offence before she was employed.

Possibly because it's a position of trust, if I were using the services of a legal firm I wouldn't want a paralegal with a criminal conviction for fraud to have access to my personal or business data.

Posted by: southpaw82 Tue, 30 Apr 2019 - 16:27
Post #1481751

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 30 Apr 2019 - 12:38) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Tue, 30 Apr 2019 - 11:56) *
I don’t see what the relevance of her employment has to the matter, especially as she committed the offence before she was employed.


Daily Fail attention grabber biggrin.gif
Considering she seems to have also defaulted on a payment plan after the removal plus another 22 PCNs outstanding, does anyone else get the feeling there will be many more tears before this story is completed.

A bit like the “£30,000 Mercedes”? Perhaps when it was new...

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 30 Apr 2019 - 13:13) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Tue, 30 Apr 2019 - 11:56) *
I don’t see what the relevance of her employment has to the matter, especially as she committed the offence before she was employed.

Possibly because it's a position of trust, if I were using the services of a legal firm I wouldn't want a paralegal with a criminal conviction for fraud to have access to my personal or business data.

Same could be said of any employee really in many businesses really. Just because she’s a “paralegal” doesn’t mean she’s qualified in the all and “should have known better” which is how I read the reference. If it’s such an issue I’m sure the SRA will issue a prohibition in due course.

Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 30 Apr 2019 - 19:29
Post #1481804

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Tue, 30 Apr 2019 - 17:27) *
Same could be said of any employee really in many businesses really. Just because she’s a “paralegal” doesn’t mean she’s qualified in the all and “should have known better” which is how I read the reference.

There are many businesses where you don't need any formal qualifications at all, but employers (and their clients / customers) won't want you if you've got a recent conviction for fraud or other dishonesty offences. That's how I saw it, more than the "should have known better" angle, but I take your point.

Posted by: southpaw82 Tue, 30 Apr 2019 - 21:00
Post #1481818

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 30 Apr 2019 - 20:29) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Tue, 30 Apr 2019 - 17:27) *
Same could be said of any employee really in many businesses really. Just because she’s a “paralegal” doesn’t mean she’s qualified in the all and “should have known better” which is how I read the reference.

There are many businesses where you don't need any formal qualifications at all, but employers (and their clients / customers) won't want you if you've got a recent conviction for fraud or other dishonesty offences.

I agree.

Posted by: TryOut Tue, 7 May 2019 - 12:07
Post #1483134

...and still they come:

https://northyorkshire.police.uk/news/woman-laser-jammer-given-suspended-sentence-for-perverting-course-of-justice/


Posted by: Jlc Tue, 7 May 2019 - 12:34
Post #1483140

QUOTE (TryOut @ Tue, 7 May 2019 - 13:07) *
https://northyorkshire.police.uk/news/woman-laser-jammer-given-suspended-sentence-for-perverting-course-of-justice/

I can quite believe it was a device to help parking...

Posted by: DancingDad Tue, 7 May 2019 - 12:51
Post #1483143

QUOTE (Jlc @ Tue, 7 May 2019 - 13:34) *
QUOTE (TryOut @ Tue, 7 May 2019 - 13:07) *
https://northyorkshire.police.uk/news/woman-laser-jammer-given-suspended-sentence-for-perverting-course-of-justice/

I can quite believe it was a device to help parking...


Absolutely.
Means you can get to the parking spot quicker rolleyes.gif

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 8 May 2019 - 04:52
Post #1483353

Interesting background to the company selling the device.
https://www.laserjammertests.com/laserpropark.htm

Posted by: Churchmouse Thu, 9 May 2019 - 23:42
Post #1483930

I don't understand. The effectiveness of these devices has been repeatedly vouched for by no less an authority than Traffic Constable Andy Forth of the North Yorkshire Police, Traffic Bureau. They clearly work as advertised. The company should be rolling in dough (rather than having been struck off in 2009)...

--Churchmouse

Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 30 May 2019 - 13:55
Post #1488822

Six months (not suspended) for deliberately naming someone who wasn't the driver and persisting in lies all the way to court.
https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/local-news/driver-who-lied-who-speeding-2916942

Posted by: ohnoes Fri, 31 May 2019 - 13:24
Post #1489058

Another one

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7069837/Motorist-tried-dodge-speeding-fine-inventing-character-caught-CCTV-act.html

Posted by: DancingDad Fri, 31 May 2019 - 20:16
Post #1489125

QUOTE (ohnoes @ Fri, 31 May 2019 - 14:24) *
Another one

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7069837/Motorist-tried-dodge-speeding-fine-inventing-character-caught-CCTV-act.html



That one deserved extra time for stupidity.
No fixed cameras on the Heartlands Parkway so would have been a camera van copping him head on.
Clear photo almost guaranteed.

Posted by: madbasshunter Fri, 31 May 2019 - 22:22
Post #1489159

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 31 May 2019 - 21:16) *
QUOTE (ohnoes @ Fri, 31 May 2019 - 14:24) *
Another one

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7069837/Motorist-tried-dodge-speeding-fine-inventing-character-caught-CCTV-act.html



That one deserved extra time for stupidity.
No fixed cameras on the Heartlands Parkway so would have been a camera van copping him head on.
Clear photo almost guaranteed.


Where was a dove when he needed it rolleyes.gif

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/05/28/speeding-driver-saved-divine-intervention-dove-obscures-face/



Posted by: Churchmouse Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 14:58
Post #1489621

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 31 May 2019 - 21:16) *
QUOTE (ohnoes @ Fri, 31 May 2019 - 14:24) *
Another one

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7069837/Motorist-tried-dodge-speeding-fine-inventing-character-caught-CCTV-act.html



That one deserved extra time for stupidity.
No fixed cameras on the Heartlands Parkway so would have been a camera van copping him head on.
Clear photo almost guaranteed.

If drivers can now be reliably identified from photographs in such cases, maybe there's longer any justification for a s.172...

--Churchmouse

Posted by: cp8759 Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 17:22
Post #1489661

QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 15:58) *
If drivers can now be reliably identified from photographs in such cases, maybe there's longer any justification for a s.172...

--Churchmouse

Even if it's not an absolute necessity (the police could pull driving licence photos etc...), by far the most practical and cost effective way to identify the driver is a s172 letter.

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 03:46
Post #1490001

QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 15:58) *
If drivers can now be reliably identified from photographs in such cases, maybe there's longer any justification for a s.172...

--Churchmouse

I'm sure if I crash into your car and do a runner you'd be quite happy there was no S172 for the Police to use to trace me as the driver? S172 predates the use of speed/traffic light cameras and will likely post date great photo's from those of the driver as well. Not withstanding we have no national database of driver photo's and the amount of effort and time and cost involved would be disproportionate anyway. Not your best thought out comment.

Posted by: Fredd Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 09:22
Post #1490038

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 04:46) *
Not withstanding we have no national database of driver photo's

Not unless you count the one that DVLA insist on populating for photocard licences, and that the police have access to.

Posted by: cp8759 Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 10:36
Post #1490055

QUOTE (Fredd @ Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 10:22) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 04:46) *
Not withstanding we have no national database of driver photo's

Not unless you count the one that DVLA insist on populating for photocard licences, and that the police have access to.

But it's an incomplete database: many people drive on EU licences, old paper licences etc...

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 11:03
Post #1490061

QUOTE (Fredd @ Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 10:22) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 04:46) *
Not withstanding we have no national database of driver photo's

Not unless you count the one that DVLA insist on populating for photocard licences, and that the police have access to.

I should have been clearer, they have a file of them, but its not a database that is searchable (using a photo and searching for a match)

Posted by: Churchmouse Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 11:51
Post #1490073

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 12:03) *
QUOTE (Fredd @ Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 10:22) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 04:46) *
Not withstanding we have no national database of driver photo's

Not unless you count the one that DVLA insist on populating for photocard licences, and that the police have access to.

I should have been clearer, they have a file of them, but its not a database that is searchable (using a photo and searching for a match)

LOL. Facial recognition software is probably not a thing...

I was actually trying to get someone to provide the rationale used in Francis so I didn't have to look it up.

--Churchmouse


Posted by: andy_foster Wed, 12 Jun 2019 - 19:02
Post #1492024

QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 12:51) *
I was actually trying to get someone to provide the rationale used in Francis so I didn't have to look it up.


Assuming that you are referring to Francis v DPP (2004), off the top of my head it was that it was clearly Parliament's intention that s. 172 RTA 1988 and s. 12(1) RTOA 1988 be used in conjunction and that a signature was somehow 'information' within the meaning of s. 172.

If you are referring to O'Halloran and Francis v the UK, the rationale was somewhat more irrational.

Posted by: Churchmouse Fri, 14 Jun 2019 - 12:16
Post #1492472

QUOTE (andy_foster @ Wed, 12 Jun 2019 - 20:02) *
QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 12:51) *
I was actually trying to get someone to provide the rationale used in Francis so I didn't have to look it up.


Assuming that you are referring to Francis v DPP (2004), off the top of my head it was that it was clearly Parliament's intention that s. 172 RTA 1988 and s. 12(1) RTOA 1988 be used in conjunction and that a signature was somehow 'information' within the meaning of s. 172.

If you are referring to O'Halloran and Francis v the UK, the rationale was somewhat more irrational.


Thanks, I was wondering to what extent the court's justification for ignoring ECHR Article 6 had been based on a government argument that it was not technologically possible to identify the culprit by photograpic means. I now see that the government had argued that "there was no obvious generally effective alternative to the power contained in section 172 and without such a power it would be impossible to investigate and prosecute traffic offences effectively," but it doesn't appear that the court had actually based any of its reasoning on that particular argument. In fact, the court ignored several other arguments as well, including the one which had noted that other European jurisdictions had found ways to prosecute bad drivers without violating Article 6, implying that the UK's approach was clearly not justified by necessity.

--Churchmouse

Posted by: The Rookie Mon, 1 Jul 2019 - 07:04
Post #1496294

And another, claimed it was cloned plates, even changed the car to not match the camera photo's and blamed the local travelling community, finally coughed to the speeding and now tried for the perverting.

https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/17738334.driver-is-found-guilty-of-lying-to-try-and-evade-speeding-ticket/
Found guilty by the Jury, judge awaiting pre-sentencing reports.

Posted by: cp8759 Mon, 1 Jul 2019 - 13:49
Post #1496421

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 1 Jul 2019 - 08:04) *
finally coughed to the speeding...

I might have missed it but where does it say that?

Posted by: samthecat Tue, 2 Jul 2019 - 06:23
Post #1496568

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 1 Jul 2019 - 14:49) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 1 Jul 2019 - 08:04) *
finally coughed to the speeding...

I might have missed it but where does it say that?


Hidden via a link ..... https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/17735920.driver-says-wifes-illness-caused-him-to-own-up-to-speeding/

He did it, no he didn't..... Yes he did.

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 3 Jul 2019 - 16:45
Post #1496928

And another, lied about the driver identity, maintained all the way to court.

5 months suspended for 24 months, 180hrs community service and £300 costs to boot.
https://www.spiritfm.net/news/sussex-news/2905622/driver-convicted-for-lying-about-speeding/

Posted by: cp8759 Thu, 4 Jul 2019 - 20:05
Post #1497236

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 3 Jul 2019 - 17:45) *
And another, lied about the driver identity, maintained all the way to court.

5 months suspended for 24 months, 180hrs community service and £300 costs to boot.
https://www.spiritfm.net/news/sussex-news/2905622/driver-convicted-for-lying-about-speeding/

Operation Pinocchio laugh.gif

Posted by: The Rookie Fri, 5 Jul 2019 - 05:42
Post #1497321

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 4 Jul 2019 - 21:05) *
Operation Pinocchio laugh.gif

At least it proves someone has a sense of humour! This isn't the first OP case, I think i've seen about half a dozen now, the Police are taking this more seriously.

Posted by: The Rookie Mon, 29 Jul 2019 - 06:51
Post #1503465

Roadside stop, gave details of a childhood friend, friend was subsequently arrested for failing to respond (presumably the address was wrong). Plead guilty to PCoJ and sentenced to an overnight curfew for 9 months.

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/aberdeen/1805060/moray-man-attempted-to-frame-childhood-friend-over-speeding-ticket/

Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 1 Aug 2019 - 10:46
Post #1504405

Not speeding but dangerous driving, stuck to a claim someone else was driving, 2 months in jail.
https://www.banburyguardian.co.uk/news/people/high-end-car-dealer-jailed-for-perverting-course-of-justice-1-9001087

Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 6 Aug 2019 - 12:14
Post #1505635

Fiona Onasanya: Former MP struck off as solicitor https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-49251372

Posted by: cabbyman Tue, 6 Aug 2019 - 18:55
Post #1505766

https://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2019/08/06/news/suspended-sentence-for-taxi-driver-who-tried-to-avoid-penalty-points-by-claiming-son-was-behind-wheel-1678328/

https://www.bishopsstortfordindependent.co.uk/news/suspended-sentences-for-former-airport-taxi-driver-and-wife-who-lied-about-speeding-9078671/

Posted by: The Rookie Mon, 26 Aug 2019 - 10:56
Post #1510571

Named a non existent person who he claimed to have given money to in order to accept his speeding 'points and fine'.

4 months suspended for 18.
https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/stoke-on-trent-news/restaurant-owner-spared-jail-after-3169933

Pretty nuts as firstly he was only on 6 points and secondly he would have qualified for a course (assuming he hadn't done one in the preceding 3 years).

Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 29 Aug 2019 - 09:43
Post #1511291

A policewoman who should surely have realised the implications was jailed for four months after trying to persuade her colleagues to drop a case against her partner.
End of her career as well obviously.

All for a offence where a fixed penalty was pretty certain to be offered (48 in a 30).

https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/local-news/policewoman-jailed-after-trying-persuade-3260266

Posted by: morrisman Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 18:03
Post #1516427

Another laser jammer bloke - £6K + 7 month suspended sentence

https://northyorkshire.police.uk/news/dishonest-porsche-driver-6000-out-of-pocket-for-trying-to-evade-justice/


Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 19 Sep 2019 - 05:15
Post #1516512

P.C. Forth is a busy chappy!

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)