The 'willing to go to jail to avoid speeding' thread |
The 'willing to go to jail to avoid speeding' thread |
Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 09:48
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Maybe rather than keep starting posts we can put them into one as a warning to others
Two speeding events, not his van honest guvnor, jailed for 6 months. And from the archives under the status of legendary Andy Roo (ex of this parish) Chris Huhne and the ex Mrs Huhne And a future volunteer it seems This post has been edited by The Rookie: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 09:50 -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 23:33
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,356 Joined: 30 Jun 2008 From: Landan Member No.: 20,731 |
The devices apparently have legal uses, so it is not illegal to fit them to a vehicle. But in any case, as we have discussed many times before, the act that is PCoJ must follow the event which was or was likely to result in an investigation, so the fitting of the device could not have been PCoJ. I suppose the argument could have been that PCoJ act was the "use" of the device following the "event" of speeding (assuming they could prove the speeding without the defeated speed detection device), which was reasonably expected to result in an investigation.
The "middle finger" guy removed the jammer device from his car--that was an act following an event likely to be investigated. The biker covered his number plate--again, an act following the event. Maybe this guy did something like that? “I advise anyone who may have a similar device fitted to their vehicle to think about the consequences of using such a device and strongly recommend that they remove it from their vehicle to avoid a future prosecution.” If there had been the occurrence of an event, which it could reasonably have been expected that an investigation would follow, doing that would be PCoJ. Thanks, TC Forth. This post has been edited by Churchmouse: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 23:34 |
|
|
Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 00:28
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
The devices apparently have legal uses, so it is not illegal to fit them to a vehicle. But in any case, as we have discussed many times before, the act that is PCoJ must follow the event which was or was likely to result in an investigation, so the fitting of the device could not have been PCoJ. I suppose the argument could have been that PCoJ act was the "use" of the device following the "event" of speeding (assuming they could prove the speeding without the defeated speed detection device), which was reasonably expected to result in an investigation. ……... I take your point on the legal uses and perhaps if someone could show that it was fitted for a legal purpose, to signal automatic doors on their garage for instance (one of the legal uses) they could have watered down the part of PCOJ that says it must be intentional, a deliberate act. Otherwise it is a little like having a crowbar in your hand outside someone else's back door. There are many legal reasons for having one but unless you are helping the owner break in it is difficult to think of one in that instance. Going equipped is the charge in that case, not burglary as it has not happened but attempted burglary would be in the frame. In that respect does it actually matter if speeding or not? They fitted a metaphorical crowbar that automatically causes a laser speed device to fail, that is the crime, not actually speeding and I cannot see if before or after the event has any bearing. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 23:47 |