|
Lucy - very clear and succinct but your feeling that he was exceptionally fortunate is guesswork. And he's done no more or less than countless thousands of other people, for all manner of offences. Why is this man discredited and 'loophole Nick'' applauded?? What's the difference??
|
Lucy - very clear and succinct but your feeling that he was exceptionally fortunate is guesswork. And he's done no more or less than countless thousands of other people, for all manner of offences. Why is this man discredited and 'loophole Nick'' applauded?? What's the difference??
The question Dieseldogg asked was "Would it work for me?"
I believe the magistrates would have thrown out this argument on almost every occasion on the grounds that Special Reasons normally requires an emergency where the driver can or is offering active help. So a doctor rushing to the scene or someone rushing the child to casualty would qualify - an officer speeding up to see his child who he was told was sick would not.
Add to that the testimony of the ticketing officer was that he had not brought up the child's condition at the scene would imply that the issue was not bearing heavily on his mind at the time and no evidence appears to have been provided as to the seriousness of the child's condition,,,
So there was a guilty plea by post with a Special Reasons based on a claimed phone call from his wife asserting that his child was sick but with little/no evidence of whether there was an actual emergency or his attendance or speeding could have improved the child's condition. Further that it was insufficient as an imperative for the officer to mention it at the time he was stopped.
I don't believe that Nick Freeman would have gone to court so ill prepared in his arguments.
The question Dieseldogg asked was "Would it work for me?"
The answer is "probably not".
|
|
If you'd been asked if it would have worked for this defendant then presumably the answer would have been 'probably not'. But it did, so the answer should be 'maybe'. My point is that you can't expect the next bench to be any smarter than the one in this case. Magistrates (and juries) make many surprising and unexpected decisions. If it were me, I'd likely have plead to this one and go with your advice (since the clerk should be advising the magistrates acordingly) but it worked. So maybe it would work again.
|
|
I didn't say I wouldn't have gone for Special Reasons - it was all he had.
But as it stands it would seem likely that his case was considerably assisted because the defendant was a serving police officer.
It was also probably considerably assisted by him not attending court and hence he was not able to be examined on oath.
The implied question from the OP was would the court have reached the same verdict had a civilian gone to court (or not gone) with his child's health as the central argument and faced testimony from the ticketing officer that the issue of the child's health was never raised as an issue when he stopped him at the scene?
The answer is "probably not".
|
|
We got there in the end:
'But as it stands it would seem likely that his case was considerably assisted because the defendant was a serving police officer.'
Where's the evidence for this assertion?
|
Where's the evidence for this assertion?
Because it is probably true - the courts tend to show greater respect to the word of a police officer, on or off duty, than they do to that of a member of the public.
This case made the national newspapers because hisnot being penalised was somewhat surprising.
He was doing 68 mph in a 30 mph limit and pleaded guilty. Successful Special Reasons arguments on a speeder are very rare. Magistrate's guidelines give considerable latitude in Special Reasons cases but they would normally include the urgent personal need to alleviate an emergency.
The ticketing officer stated that he never mentioned the illness of his son at the time he was stopped. Had he attended court he would have been cross examined on this but because he did not attend court the prosecution were not granted the opportunity to do so. That was his right.
Given previous examples of this type of case the magistrates took what would certainly appear to be a lenient view.
Had he OP written to the court stating he needed to get home to his sick son and in the course of the hearing a police officer had said (I paraphrase) that "he didn't mention it at the time" would the mags have believed him and not imposed a penalty.
Probably not.
|
|
Without access to the court transcipt there's little point arguing the specifics of this case, because you'd have to rely on the Press report...and that is designed to sell news, not 100% reflect the accuracy of the court hearing.
There could easily be a number of 'extras' to this matter that might sway a Magistrates opinion..and we'd have no idea what that was.
|
|
The press report seems quite sympathetic.
http://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/Babydash-dad-stopped-by-fellow.6335563.jp
What's odd is that the ticketing officer, Garwood, swears in court that the speeding officer, Walker did not tell him that his baby was ill. Walker pleading guilty by post says he did.
So what do we have here then, a police officer who was not told of the emergency and one that is making it up as an excuse for driving at twice the posted limit
or
one who is willing to state under oath something that is not true
This is not the finest hour for the reputation of the honesty of the police.
|
|
|
Without access to the court transcipt there's little point arguing the specifics of this case, because you'd have to rely on the Press report...and that is designed to sell news, not 100% reflect the accuracy of the court hearing.
It was a Mags hearing. They don't take too long and they aren't too complicated.
The facts are:
1. He was doing 68mph in a 30mph zone.
2. He pleaded guilty and admitted the offence.
3. He claimed (by post) that the reason he exceeded the speed limit was he was rushing home because his wife had called him as his son was ill. He claimed this provided him with sufficient special reasons to speed.
4. i The ticketing officer said he never mentioned the illness of his child at the scene
ii Had he testified he would have been cross examined on this. Because he did not he was not
5. The Mags accepted his version even though he did not attend and there was no on-oath testimony and despite his version of events flatly contradicting the statement of another police officer.
You seem to be asserting that other members of the public could have expected equally sympathetic treatment from the court had they not shown up.
Further that his position as a police officer would not have had any effect on the result or penalty.
Does anyone else believe this?
Probably not.
|
You seem to be asserting that other members of the public could have expected equally sympathetic treatment from the court had they not shown up.
Further that his position as a police officer would not have had any effect on the result or penalty.
I would greatly appreciate it if you would refrain from putting 'words in my mouth'. I have asserted no such thing and have got nowhere near to doing so.
Your point about a bench taking the word of a police officer has relevance (although nowadays to a considerably less degree than it used to)..... but why did that bench not take the word of the one that was on duty at the time, rather than the off duty one who might well have an angle? I know which one i'd choose.
My point is, how do we know if there was not more information provided to the court by the defendant that was not reported by the Press.... and the difficulties involved of speculating about things without knowing the full facts.
...and then of course maybe there's the 'Masonic influence'...;-)
(the last line is a joke, by the way).
|
|
'Because it is probably true - the courts tend to show greater respect to the word of a police officer, on or off duty, than they do to that of a member of the public.'
Well if it's probably true that's me convinced then. A fine argument indeed.
As for the courts showing greater respect to the word of an officer - do you have some evidence for that? It isn't the case in my experience.
Anyway, you're entitled to your view and I respect it.
|
|
The defendant pleaded guilty by letter and contradicted the ticketing officer who was in court under oath. What more information do we need?
I think the funny handshake and rolled up trouser reference may well be pertinent....
|
|
I think the magistrates are plain daft sometimes -regardless of the evidence, offence, or whoever's in either box. That the defendant in this case was a policeman is neither here nor there. the difference is that it was reported and the inference being that he got special treatment. Perhaps this would be a good forum to discuss the stories that solicitors make up for their clients either at interview stage or court stage. They often win the bench over too!
|
|
A curious fact which may or may not have bearing on the mass of speculation surrounding this case. In France and Spain (and probably in a couple of other countries influenced by the Napoleonic Code) a serving police officer within his jurisdiction enjoys the presumption of truth, enshrined in law. If a Gendarme says m'sieur was speeding, he was speeding, pay up or surrender licence, car, even a few days' liberty and there is no need to prove it by means of any electronic or other data (as thousands of errant motorists blasting down the Pas de Calais every summer will confirm.) Strangely, a police officer outside his jurisdiction has to take his chance like Joe Public; a municipal police officer shopping at IKEA in a neighbouring town may arrest, give evidence etc. but only in the same manner as a civilian - the same applies to gendarmes/Guardia Civil (rural areas) and agents de police/Policia Nacional (built up areas) and so on.
My point is this - the "system" dictates that either a police officer's word is assumed to be truthful - or else it is always open to question. A police officer either enjoys a special status - or else has no more status than the proverbial Man on the Clapham Omnibus.
Which is it to be?
|
My point is this - the "system" dictates that either a police officer's word is assumed to be truthful - or else it is always open to question. A police officer either enjoys a special status - or else has no more status than the proverbial Man on the Clapham Omnibus.
Which is it to be?
The thing about this case though is that we have 2 police officers contradicting one another, so it seems we have both "systems". A letter to the court is assumed truthful, a sworn statement is open to question.
|
A letter to the court is assumed truthful, a sworn statement is open to question.
So next time I get Peter the Photocopier salesman in on (another) mobile phone offence I tell him to write to the court saying he wasn't using the phone he was only holding it and they will believe him? :-)
I think you have to deal with these cases on the basis that if an officer is giving evidence as witness in a case then the balance of belief has to be in favour of the officer's evidence.
At least in terms of motoring offences they might make mistakes or be mistaken but they don't usually lie about things. So if the officer says he saw Peter using his mobile phone then the balance of evidence is that that he did - or the officer believes that he did - and it is up to the defence to shake it,
If the officer is in the dock then the same rules have to apply as for anybody else being tried for offences. On this occasion they should have adjourned and had him in court and if he wouldn't go on oath they should have taken some inference from that. A Special Reasons is like a trial within a trial. In my view they should not be heard except with the defendant present.
On another issue solicitors do not make up stories for their client. They will endeavor to present the client's version in the best possible light but that is a very different matter.
I have come across a few cases where I believe the defendant was making up a story but on no occasion was the solicitor a party to constructing it.
|
If the officer is in the dock then the same rules have to apply as for anybody else being tried for offences. On this occasion they should have adjourned and had him in court and if he wouldn't go on oath they should have taken some inference from that. A Special Reasons is like a trial within a trial. In my view they should not be heard except with the defendant present.
I agree. The only credit the justice system seems to get from this is that the ticketing officer demonstrated commendable impartiality in writing the ticket in the first place.
I'm sure most of us civvies would have let a colleague off with a nudge and a wink.
|
|
Hmmmm me too! Prepared statements anybody??
|
Hmmmm me too! Prepared statements anybody??
I don't suppose most people on this forum know what you are talking about.
Can you enlighten us?
|
|
Lucy, I take it from your contributions you are somehow involved in the CJ system. In which case you already know and simply want me to expand, which I don't need to do, (there are other contributors who know exactly what I'm talking about) or your previous posts are not those formed from experience. I've made my point, which follows considerable experience, but I'll opt out now lest I go too far. In any case, we digress from motoring per se into opinions about the machinations of the CJ system. Once again, I respect your view, you may be right, I may be wrong....
|
|
HJ points out that these police are highly trained to drive at speed. I accept that.
However, I use firearms, and have been since I was 12. I feel that my safety/knowledge through experience through the decades is as high if not higher than a firearms officer who has been on a course for a few months.
So, if that is the case (which I believe it is), doesn't decades of experience behind a wheel equate to someing similar to being "highly trained", and if so, can't we all use that excuse?
|
|
Safety and knowledge is only one small part of being an authorised firearms officer. Learning and training different tactical options to resolve a situation, as a team, is a wholly different prospect. Then add into that the relevant justification within the law (a somewhat grey area), compounded by the human rights act (minimum force as opposed to the Uk law talking about 'reasonable force') and there's much to learn. Ex-army personnel frequently fail police firearms courses, though not always of course, because the crossover between military use and civil police use is very limited indeed. Whilst your analogy perhaps makes sense, I believe that many drivers have never developed much beyond their first few months behind the wheel. Someone who has been driving for 30 years might be said to have had their first years experience 30 times over. Driving is a strange skill in that many people accept they can be trained in countless other skills, but few explore, or accept, that they may benefit from driver training. I've never understood why it should be so, but it's a very personal thing for many people to have their driving criticised. You'd not likely get the same reaction if you criticised a man's ability to operate a sewing machine, but most could be taught! So I think there is a difference between a person who has received specific additional training, and one who has not. Having said that, there is no guarantee that the person drives according to their training and they perhaps go on to believe that they are better than they really are.
|
|
Except Woodster, courtsey of Police Camera Action, I have witnessed Police Officers behaving in a dangerous fashion whilst in "hot persuit"
For Instance going the wrong side of a traffic island to go round a mini roundabout the wrong way in a built up area. An absolutly sucidal manouver.
Plus the dork ( police officer)on the Motorway who attempted to force his way past a HGV and getting crushed against the Armoco, i hasten to add that when he commenced this manouver it was absolutey clear that there was insufficient room. PS
This after he had spun out earlier " due to a tyre blow out"
Who got the blame for the ill judged overtaking well doh the poor sucker of a truck driver.
PS two wrongs do NOt make a right.
So basically when push comes to shove the training goes out the window and human nature takes over. Or so it has been my observation.
taking into account the No of fatalities caused by speeding police cars. Not to mention the Plod with Guns.
However however, In my humble experience the RUC were possibly different, in respect of the quality of both their car & firearms training. Or even hey..... perhaps in the quality of their raw material/recruits?
I had the pleasure of sitting in with a senior RUC accident inspector. His observational skills were superb. He could also drive, fast & safe.
Cheers
M
Edited by dieseldogg on 11/06/2010 at 18:25
|
For Instance going the wrong side of a traffic island to go round a mini roundabout the wrong way in a built up area. An absolutly sucidal manouver.
Nothing wrong with that...as long as you have the proper vision.
I had the pleasure of sitting in with a senior RUC accident inspector. His observational skills were superb. He could also drive, fast & safe.
Why would it only be the RUC (PSNI) who would have that level of skill? The facts are those skills are replicated all over the UK.
|
|
Re the "proper vision" from the car mounted cameras viewpoint it certinely appeared that vision was blocked by a building line, ie I could not "see" nor see how the driver could possibly see either, I appreciate that he probably had his "blues & twos" on However this would seem to be a bit trusting on others judgment to get out of the way of a vehicle that they could not see. see?
Re the RUC/training yes I appreciate that other forces may train to the same standards. However I have been reliably informed that some do not.Re Driver training.
btw I did not say that the RUC were the only ones with skills.
However................ there has only been one Police Car crash that i recall in 30 years, a mitubushi Shogun sport fairly recently. Compared to the UK record.
I appreciate population stats etc etc may play a part
Cheers M
PS
Westpig............ I did nominate you for Prime Minister recently.....due to the common sense nature of your postings.
Cheers again
|
|
Not sure why your post was directed at me Diseldogg. If you read the last sentence of my last post then perhaps my view will be clearer to you. Without doubt there has been a dumbing down of driver training across Uk police forces. It's expensive. The standard almost certainly isn't what it was 20 years ago. The point for police managers is whether or not they're getting an officer to a job within agreed timescales. It matters not what level of driver gets there, it just matters that someone gets there, if you see what I mean. It could be said that how they get there is their personal responsibility, they must drive according to the law and within their own level of driver training. If a non response driver has to drive acrosss town without blues and twos, being held up by all and sundry, while a crime is in progress, then that's what he/she has to do. If they get their within the agreed time then everyone's apparently happy! I don't intend to engage in a discussion about the rights and wrongs of all this, I merely comment, just like everyone else does. Whether the puiblic get the service they deserve as a result of cost savings in driver training really isn't for me to say.
|
|
I'm not going in to too much detail, but i'm fairly well placed to comment on driver training and standards.
The goal posts are moving all the time...to the detriment of the police driver who errs.
IDR (Incident Data Recorders), MDT (Mobile Data Terminals), increased CCTV, higher expectations of the public, more intrusive supervision from IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commission) and less training = a big 'no-no' if you get it wrong.
The above is a good thing in many ways for the public, but can easily leave the individual unpleasantly isolated if all they've done is made a mistake trying to do a difficult job.
The future has major budget cuts in it, so training isn't going to improve....and demand will continue to increase.
|
|
All very interesting but absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with a police officer who was doing 68mph in a 30mph zone when he was off duty and was not punished by the court.
The law needs to be seen to apply to everyone unless the Special Reasons are genuine which should be tested.
Everyone understands that emergency drivers may need to speed and take risks to get to the scene more quickly at times but the public are not going to accept being hectored by the police about speeding when police officers break the law with impunity when there is no emergency or they are off duty.
|
The law needs to be seen to apply to everyone unless the Special Reasons are genuine which should be tested.
Lucy,
What's your problem? If you are experienced in court matters, you must see people getting off things for the most implausible reasons...every day of the week.
Some will be absolutely awful people, who make others' lives an absolute misery, continuously. Some will be complete crooks of the highest order.
Why would it trouble you that someone within law enforcement avails themselves of the same privilege when they're in some minor mire?
S?ome ??of?? your ??colleagues? ?i?n?d?u?l?g?e? ?i?n? ?t?h?e? ?m?o?s?t? ?q?u?e?s?t?i?o?n?a?b?l?e? ?p?r?a?c?t?i?c?e?s?.?.?.?
.?.?.??a?n?d? ?w?e?l?l? ?y?o?u? ?k?n?o?w? ?i?t?.
|
The above is a good thing in many ways for the public
It's difficult to see where this is coming from. 40 people were killed during police chases in 2008-2009, nearly double the number of the previous year http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8154865.stm
It's not safe to drive at more than twice the speed limit no matter how well trained you are supposed to be. Other road users are certainly not expecting unmarked cars to be approaching at that speed and casualties are inevitable. Police drivers need very good reasons to be risking lives in this way.
I feel that a half hearted excuse by letter to the bench wouldn't convince most of us.
|
|
Lucy - he didn't break the law with impunity - he was prosecuted. I think the general point throughout this thread is perhaps best aimed at the magistrates. That you may not agree with either the process or the decision itself, the magistrates did what they were asked to do. The officer did what countless others have also done in entering some sort of defence or mitigation. He enjoys the same rights as everyone else. The truth is that people don't like the outcome because he's a policeman. If you were defending someone and entered a tenuous defence and won, would you have the same criticism?
|
It's difficult to see where this is coming from. 40 people were killed during police chases in 2008-2009, nearly double the number of the previous year http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8154865.stm
...and the other option?...ignore crime?..easily enough achieved with a strongly worded memo and then there would be a free for all... and loads of people moaning that the Old Bill weren't doing anything about crime. Think about it. Any crook could hop in a car or on a motrobike and be absolutely free to do whatever they felt like, do you really want to live in a society like that?
It's not safe to drive at more than twice the speed limit no matter how well trained you are supposed to be.
Rubbish. There can be more dangers and they have to be properly risk assessed, but that statement is overly simplistic.
Other road users are certainly not expecting unmarked cars to be approaching at that speed .
Well they damned well should be. If everything wasn't so dumbed down nowadays maybe they might actually look in their mirrors and/or be more aware of what is going on around them. I live in hope.
|
Rubbish. There can be more dangers and they have to be properly risk assessed, but that statement is overly simplistic.
No Westpig, there are more dangers. That's how come the police kill 40 people a year. If this death toll was caused by firearms 'accidents' then there would be hell to pay but since in your opinion, it's just Joe Public missing a mirror check, then 'tough'.
I live in despair..
|
|
Carr,
Despair not. Go and take a civilian Advanced Driving Course, up your game, driving wise, considerably. You will see things from a different perpsective.
One of those is roughly similar to the basics on a Police 'standard course'...not to be mixed up with the Police Advanced Course, which is a completely different level again.
Many (not all) lorry drivers and some bikers have enhanced driving skills, that they learn naturally..becauase they have to e.g. looking ahead, actually seeing things and planning in advance.
It's an art that most car drivers simply do not know exists.
|
|
Westpig
My point is that even with advanced skills, and a competence that is supposed to be at a 'completely different level' the police have killed 40 people this year, nearly 1 a week
It's not just a question of the public learning to drive better, collisions in cars these days are often survivable. Often as not these 'accidents' are killing pedestrians.
e.g. http://www.birminghamwired.co.uk/news.php/66522-Pedestrian-dies-in-marked-police-car-crash-in-Coventry
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8326133.stm
I'm sure the police have their job to do but let's not kid ourselves that any amount of training makes it safe to drive recklessly on public roads.
I happen to live in France, it won't be convenient for me to take any advanced driving tests in the UK. Needless to say the French police seem to exhibit the same cocky competence in roadcraft as their UK counterparts.
http://www.francesoir.fr/faits-divers/deux-gendarmes-mis-en-cause-dans-un-accident-mortel
(Gendarmes do unexpected U turn in front of approaching car in which 19 year old driver is killed outright).
Bonne route.
Edited by carr on 26/06/2010 at 10:26
|
|
Carr,
You seem to be equating fast police driving with automatic recklessness...is this really so?...No, it is not.
How many people 'killed by police' are liable themselves for their action(s), to whatever varying degree... e.g. thief in stolen car who dies in a pursuit...or the heavily inebriated drunk who staggers out in front of an emergency service vehicle in a foolish act of bravado (and that does happen more times than you'd imagine).
I'm not saying all Police drivers are saints and never get it wrong...that would be clearly untrue....but what I am saying is that for the millions of miles completed by Police drivers on emergency calls, the really serious accident figures are not that bad..at all....and the figure of 40 you have quoted may well have a varying degree of police driver culpability...stats never tell you that.
|
|
As some had said, we only have the newspaper report to go on. But taking that as it stands, in my view the police deserve a pat on the back as they booked the speeding officer. The officer was off duty, and had no good reason to get back sooner as he is not a medic, and there was no emergency which he had to attend. In my view the magistrate has done the police, and society, a dis-service. That does make me worry. Does it mean that if you are honest, but happen to have a scouse accent, or you are a bricky or plasterer, the magistrate will do you as you are a wrong 'un, whereas if you are a police officer, you must be a good 'un?
As an aside, my father got my step brother off a charge of assault as my father stood up in court and in a posh accent explained that it was just two groups of young lads being boisterous, whereas in fact my half brother had engaed in 'paki bashing' and should have been done.
|
|
No, at that speed in a build up area i problaby would have lost my licence for a while and rightly so.He was off duty could be some truth in the mason bit :) Or a posh accent goes a long way.
|
|
From what I recall when I was a PC years ago, the Traffic division would even hand tickets out to other officers on duty if they caught them breaking any rules! I don't think this was a myth either, because I can recall being in the back of a police minibus and hearing the experienced driver say words to the effect that he was going to slow down as Traffic were around!
I realise this is slightly off the point, but it always used to tickle me, and also frankly please me quite a bit as I was prone to getting a bit travel sick when others were driving beyond a tolerable speed.
(I left the police some years ago btw)
Edited by Lee1 on 11/07/2010 at 00:18
|
|
Westpig
I'm equating fast driving with an increased chance of a serious accident. I'd say most agree with that and the law and degrees of punishment certainly reflect this proposition (well, usually).
You are no doubt aware the police are not allowed to perform pursuit driving in unmarked cars without additional lights and sirens. A policeman breaking the limit in his own car is a hazard according to his own employer's rules, no matter what driving test he has passed.
If you substitute 'police driver' with 'reckless driver' in your last paragraph it could be just as true. We can only the debate the facts here really.
|
|
Interesting thread this, most of the replies are rightly based on legal arguments, and when it boils down to to it, he got off with it cos he was a copper. Any argument with this is futile,any expert in any field would agree that to become expert in anything takes hundreds if not thousands of experiences in any given scenario to become masterful, ergo unless the officer in this case had been under this level of emotional stress and driven this road under said personal stress hundreds of times he is no better qualified than joe blogs. But do I blame him personally, hell no, I would do it myself in the same situation. I therefore propose that we champion a change in the law that allows parents rushing to medically certified acutely ill children some leniency according to circumstances. Oh and no police officer should be allowed into the the traffic division unless they have children themselves so they can appreciate how it feels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
