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.

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