A reasonable account of an appeal case in which the court heard all the evidence and submissions and came to a considered conclusion. I don't know where the switch for the blue lights on a police BMW is but perhaps MLC or one of our other BIB's can clarify.
Driving at that speed in those conditions he's going to have to priorotise his actions. Pilots express that process as aviate, navigate, communicate. Police advanced driving probaly has something similar.
|
'His barrister, Nicholas Hilliard QC, argued successfully that Bannister was no ordinary motorist, but a highly-qualified police driver with years of experience, "
Highly qualified, years of experience... but failed to learn that you if do 120 mph in the rain then your asking for trouble as you aqua plain along a rain soaked M Way ?
|
|
|
...appeal case in which the court heard all the evidence and submissions...
Bromptonaut,
With respect, the Appeal Court doesn't hear any evidence, there are transcripts, usually of the judge's summing up, which is referred to in the report.
The original jury at Cardiff Crown Court heard all the evidence, and we know what they thought of it.
Careless driving is 'a momentary lapse', whereas dangerous driving is 'a prolonged period of inattention'.
All the stuff about him being experienced or otherwise is not evidence, it's just mitigation.
His driving would have been the same if he was a 17-year-old student on L-plates.
|
|
The whole thing smacks of ' look mate, we'll send you to prison but only to please an outraged public ' ' Then, once you're old news, overtaken by swine flu/ recession we'll bail you, 'shouldn't be in more than a few days and you'll be back out. "
|
|
|
...appeal case in which the court heard all the evidence and submissions... Bromptonaut With respect the Appeal Court doesn't hear any evidence there are transcripts usually of the judge's summing up which is referred to in the report.
I knew that but thought I'd see if some lawyer came along to point it out ;-)
Guess the Police Federation paid Mr Hilliard's not inconsiderable fee.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 29/06/2009 at 22:17
|
public servant, doing a risky dangerous job, makes a mistake and does something wrong
goes to court, gets found Guilty and gets a harsh sentence
appeals, gets a considerably lighter sentence.. (no doubt because the Appeal Judge took into account the 20 days served in prison, which when you double it for an original sentence, because all sentences for serving purposes are halved for some inexplicable reason, equates to a 6 week sentence..and we all know virtually no one gets anything like that nowadays)
where's the problem?
and what does the blue light switch have to do with anything?
|
' and what does the blue light switch have to do with anything? "
Well according to this vastly experienced driver, section supervisor and highly qualified road user, the only reason he continued to drive at speed after being stood down was ( in the words of HIS barrister at his trial ) his desperate desire to find some where safe in order to turn off his blue lights.
'he was trying to find a safe place to turn off his blue lights after being stood down from the emergency call.'
It's a switch, not the controls of Concorde.
|
|
Didn't he also have to find somewhere to gradually slow down safely before turning off the lights?
|
|
So it started raining on the M6 the other day. I increased my speed to 100 mph in a desperate attempt to find some where safe to turn my wipers on.... yes I know, but he started it !!
|
|
|
|
|
I think the switch is barristers waffle, the brakes work with or without blue lights, he is not likely to get rear ended at 100+ MPH.
Edited by Old Navy on 29/06/2009 at 21:56
|
...The judges overturned the dangerous driving conviction, replacing it with one for careless driving....
Westpig,
Nothing to do with 20 days already served - his new conviction is for careless driving which does not carry a prison sentence.
He's been wrongly locked up - shocking.
I dunno, these blinkin' juries, they listen to the evidence and return their verdict, in this case guilty.
Some people just don't know their place.
Edited by ifithelps on 29/06/2009 at 22:18
|
Nothing to do with 20 days already served - his new conviction is for careless driving which does not carry a prison sentence.
£50 fine would be quite light for careless driving whereby you'd spun right off a wet m/way at 120mph...but not necessarily so if the judge knows you've just served 20 days for it
|
|
|
|
the only reason he continued to drive at speed after being stood down was ( in the words of HIS barrister at his trial ) his desperate desire to find some where safe in order to turn off his blue lights.
obviously complete 'tosh' and part of his 'defence'.......now answer the rest of it
|
|
So it's come to this, the men of law and order are prepared to stand in a witness box and spout tosh in order to save their own skins. Thus the line between the good and the bad has not been blurred but rubbed out altogether.
|
So it's come to this the men of law and order are prepared to stand in a witness box and spout tosh in order to save their own skins. Thus the line between the good and the bad has not been blurred but rubbed out altogether.
this is a motoring site......carry on with your agenda, by all means. I could quite easily argue the matter 'til the cows come home....but that's not what this site is about, is it?
|
This is a motoring matter. It a matter of do the laws of the road apply equally to every one who holds a legitimate licence. ?
Does the court treat every one bought before them on motoring offences equally and with impartiality.?
My belief is that we these sort of cases, the answer is fast becoming NO.
|
I've come across a lot of coppers in the courts over the years.
They always complain they get a bad trot.
My experience is the reverse is true.
|
|
It is a fine line. Some would say that a traffic plod in court on motoring charges who is found guilty should be punished more severely because they have put themselves on a pedestal in matters relating to motoring. I don't take that view. I suggest ask for equal treatment. This case clearly shows that is not happening.
|
This forum is at its best and most interesting when talking about cars. It's at its most boring in threads like this and the other current one about some unfortunate lady whose car was sticking out into the road.
Worse still when one misdemeanour by an individual policeman causes the whole force to be tarred with the same brush, and the (amazingly tolerant) serving officers who are members of the forum have to spend time defending the force.
There's nothing we can do about issues like this - so why rage impotently?
Edited by Avant on 29/06/2009 at 22:37
|
Car engines, dodgy dealers, the rules of the road, the law, the price of tyres, the hold ups on the M6... all motoring issues and all have a place on a motoring forum. I think the term is ' spectrum '
|
|
As MrX say all fair debate here as long as the conventions of the forum are observed - everyone is entitled to have a view....
|
>>. I suggest equal treatment. >>
emergency service drivers drive their 'work' vehicles in a wholly different way than they would their own ones. If you were talking about an occasion when off duty, i'd agree with you.
If you're talking about 'on' duty, then it's not as clear cut...because you wouldn't drive your own car at twice a speed limit, through red lights or the wrong side of 'keep left' bollards etc...yet if it were to go horribly wrong, then be subject to the exact same law as everyone else... i.e. no leeway laid down in the law for the extra stresses/strains and/or likelihood of it going wrong because of the extra danger(s) involved
it can be no surprise that experienced judges/magistrates take this into account...albeit there are limits to this leeway, as you obviously cannot have a 'free for all' or 'get out of jail free' card.
bottom line is, I wouldn't want to put it to the test...certainly not nowadays
|
This is a motoring matter. It a matter of do the laws of the road apply equally to every one who holds a legitimate licence. ?
Actually the law does discriminate in favour of public servants who need to exceed the speed limit as part of their job. For that reason most are highly trained. (Ordinary police aren't, and that's a side issue.) However, they can still be done for dangerous driving. Which means that they are allowed to speed when it is judged to be safe to do so. But they are held responsible for their actions. From the account given, this copper made an error of judgement. However, I'm not sure how long there was between being stood down, and his crashing. If it was seconds, where's the problem. If it was minutes, well then he was driving at speed without due reason.
Only recently the cop who killed a teenage girl when doing an absurd speed in a build up area was sent to prison. There is one law for us all.
|
|
So it's come to this the men of law and order are prepared to stand in a witness box and spout tosh in order to save their own skins. Thus the line between the good and the bad has not been blurred but rubbed out altogether.
You saying that you havent "spouted tosh" before? Or got someone to do it on your behalf?
When I divorced the ex-MrsND we finally got round to the finances. By this time I had found the current MrsND. My barrister sat in court and stated that I had no intention of cohabiting anytime soon etc...... Saved me 15000 pounds that did.
Guess what? She got her name off the deeds at the same time the current MrsND put her name on. She werent happy.
Now tell me you have never "spouted tosh".
Edited by NorfolkDriver on 29/06/2009 at 23:01
|
I can't remember the last time I was stopped by Mr Plod - must be 12 or 15 years ago.
I do remember having to bite my tongue while receiving a lecture - from a spotty youth 20 years younger than me - about my driving/riding.
I was seething because I had just read a magazine article about their training.
TWO WEEKS it was, at the time, to qualify as a Police motorcyclist.
He was about 19, I was about 40 and had been riding for about 23 years.
All I could think of was 'You stupid little s...' and keep my mouth shut.
I think they over-estimate their own abilities. There is no substitute for experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
