OT: 90mph in 20mph zone: On you go, my son.

[Simon Brooke]

I have just heard, on the radio news, a story which shocked even me.

A young man (17, I think, but I might have that wrong - I wasn't paying
that much attention at the start of the story) was charged with
careless driving after being caught doing 90mph on the wrong side of a
20mph limit road.

He was fined £600 pounds and got a few points on his license... and
walked free.

What!? You ask?

Just so.

An important extra piece of information is that his father is Procurator
Fiscal. Not for much longer, I hope!

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; "If I were a Microsoft Public Relations person, I would probably
;; be sobbing on a desk right now" -- Rob Miller, editor, /.

 

[Andy Leighton]

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 16:28:22 +0000, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> I have just heard, on the radio news, a story which shocked even me.
>
> A young man (17, I think, but I might have that wrong - I wasn't paying
> that much attention at the start of the story) was charged with
> careless driving after being caught doing 90mph on the wrong side of a
> 20mph limit road.

Careless - why wasn't he done for Dangerous Driving?

> An important extra piece of information is that his father is Procurator
> Fiscal.

'Nuff said.

> Not for much longer, I hope!

Well I hope that this has lots of reportage and questions are asked in
your Parliament. It is not only an affront to justice, but it also
poses large questions about the the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal
Service.

--
Andy Leighton => [email protected]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

 

[Jack Ouzzi]

On 15 Dec 2004 17:25:37 GMT, Andy Leighton <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 16:28:22 +0000, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I have just heard, on the radio news, a story which shocked even me.
>>
>> A young man (17, I think, but I might have that wrong - I wasn't paying
>> that much attention at the start of the story) was charged with
>> careless driving after being caught doing 90mph on the wrong side of a
>> 20mph limit road.
>
>Careless - why wasn't he done for Dangerous Driving?
>

Agreed, but apparently a very difficult charge to bring, and to carry
sucessfully through to conviction (in general I mean and not just in
this case)

Never understood WHY !! and of course NOTHING in between.

 

[Stan Cox]

Simon Brooke wrote:
> I have just heard, on the radio news, a story which shocked even me.
>
> A young man (17, I think, but I might have that wrong - I wasn't paying
> that much attention at the start of the story) was charged with
> careless driving after being caught doing 90mph on the wrong side of a
> 20mph limit road.
>
> He was fined £600 pounds and got a few points on his license... and
> walked free.
>
> What!? You ask?
>
> Just so.
>
> An important extra piece of information is that his father is Procurator
> Fiscal. Not for much longer, I hope!
>

Why is the last bit of info important. This a standard (far too low)
sentence for this sort of thing He could have killed someone & it
would only have cost him a few more quid.

Stan Cox

 

[Mark McN]

Response to Simon Brooke:
> A young man (17, I think, but I might have that wrong - I wasn't paying
> that much attention at the start of the story) was charged with
> careless driving after being caught doing 90mph on the wrong side of a
> 20mph limit road.
>
> He was fined £600 pounds and got a few points on his license... and
> walked free.

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/hi/news/5033618.html

£600, five points, and his dad's taken the keys away.


"...a defence agent stressed it had been committed when there was no
other traffic or pedestrians around."

So that's all right then.

--
Mark, UK.
We hope to hear him swear, we love to hear him squeak,
We like to see him biting fingers in his horny beak.

 

[JLB]

Simon Brooke wrote:
> I have just heard, on the radio news, a story which shocked even me.
>
> A young man (17, I think, but I might have that wrong - I wasn't paying
> that much attention at the start of the story) was charged with
> careless driving after being caught doing 90mph on the wrong side of a
> 20mph limit road.
>
> He was fined £600 pounds and got a few points on his license... and
> walked free.

A sentence determined by the Sheriff, not the PF. I'd also note that it
would be unsafe to assume that there is any love lost between a PF and a
Sheriff.
>
> An important extra piece of information is that his father is Procurator
> Fiscal. Not for much longer, I hope!

Why? Did his father attempt to pervert the course of justice? Or do
people resign these days merely for having an errant son?


--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

 

[Andy Leighton]

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 17:34:45 +0000, Jack Ouzzi <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 15 Dec 2004 17:25:37 GMT, Andy Leighton <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 16:28:22 +0000, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I have just heard, on the radio news, a story which shocked even me.
>>>
>>> A young man (17, I think, but I might have that wrong - I wasn't paying
>>> that much attention at the start of the story) was charged with
>>> careless driving after being caught doing 90mph on the wrong side of a
>>> 20mph limit road.
>>
>>Careless - why wasn't he done for Dangerous Driving?
>>
>
> Agreed, but apparently a very difficult charge to bring, and to carry
> sucessfully through to conviction (in general I mean and not just in
> this case)

Well in some cases it might be - but surely 90mph in a 20mph zone on
the wrong side of the road is far below what is expected of a competent
and careful driver, and it would be obvious to such a driver that it
would be dangerous. OK the guy might not be fined much more, or have
to do prison, but he might have got some community service and he
would have to undergo and extended test to get his licence back (in
at least a year's time).

--
Andy Leighton => [email protected]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

 

[Duncan Gray]

"Jack Ouzzi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1103132094.371c0ba0d633eb5aba913832227c4a12@teranews...
> On 15 Dec 2004 17:25:37 GMT, Andy Leighton <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 16:28:22 +0000, Simon Brooke <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >> I have just heard, on the radio news, a story which shocked even me.
> >>
> >> A young man (17, I think, but I might have that wrong - I wasn't paying
> >> that much attention at the start of the story) was charged with
> >> careless driving after being caught doing 90mph on the wrong side of a
> >> 20mph limit road.
> >
> >Careless - why wasn't he done for Dangerous Driving?
> >
>
> Agreed, but apparently a very difficult charge to bring, and to carry
> sucessfully through to conviction (in general I mean and not just in
> this case)
>
> Never understood WHY !! and of course NOTHING in between.

It used to be that the driver could be charged with reckless or
alternatively careless driving. If the court decided the standard of
evidence was not good enough to prove a charge of reckless, then the court
could still find the driver guilty of careless driving.
Since ECHR, the use of alternatives has been outlawed and the prosecutor has
to pick one or the other right from the start.

The choice comes down how big a risk the procurator fiscal is prepared to
take that the case might be lost by a defence lawyer picking holes or
creating spurious arguments against the evidence. In an incident involving
no accident or injury, and not knowing how strong the evidence was, I'm not
not that surprised they chose to play safe.

Doesn't make it right though, and that's a stretch of road I cycle along
qhite often.

--
Duncan Gray

www.duncolm.co.uk
also The Mountaineering Council of Scotland
www.mountaineering-scotland.org.uk

 

[JLB]

Duncan Gray wrote:


> Since ECHR, the use of alternatives has been outlawed and the prosecutor has
> to pick one or the other right from the start.

I'd be grateful for a pointer to where this ruling of the European Court
of Human Rights can be found.


--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

 

[Sniper8052]

Response to Simon Brooke:
> A young man (17, I think, but I might have that wrong - I wasn't paying
> that much attention at the start of the story) was charged with
> careless driving after being caught doing 90mph on the wrong side of a
> 20mph limit road.
>
> He was fined £600 pounds and got a few points on his license... and
> walked free.

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/hi/news/5033618.html

£600, five points, and his dad's taken the keys away.


"...a defence agent stressed it had been committed when there was no
other traffic or pedestrians around."

So that's all right then.

--
Mark, UK.
We hope to hear him swear, we love to hear him squeak,
We like to see him biting fingers in his horny beak.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sniper8052

Funny that there's never anyone else around untill the little sods hit some one isn't it?

Sniper8052
_________________________________________________________________________________________________-

 

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 16:28:22 +0000 someone who may be Simon Brooke
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>An important extra piece of information is that his father is Procurator
>Fiscal.

A bunch of rascals.

>Not for much longer, I hope!

Sadly your hopes will be dashed.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[Sniper8052]

Duncan Gray wrote:


> Since ECHR, the use of alternatives has been outlawed and the prosecutor has
> to pick one or the other right from the start.

I'd be grateful for a pointer to where this ruling of the European Court
of Human Rights can be found.


--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Sniper8052
It will probably be something to do with not being tried twice for the same offence. Frankly the whole ECHR legeslation put me to sleep. I've been ignoring it and it hasn't come up yet at my PDR's.
Sniper8052
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

[Duncan Gray]

"JLB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Duncan Gray wrote:
>
>
> > Since ECHR, the use of alternatives has been outlawed and the prosecutor
has
> > to pick one or the other right from the start.
>
> I'd be grateful for a pointer to where this ruling of the European Court
> of Human Rights can be found.
>

Not a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, AIUI, it comes from an
interpretation of the European Convention of Human Rights requiring details
of a charge put to an accused being closely defined.

 

[JLB]

Duncan Gray wrote:
> "JLB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Duncan Gray wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Since ECHR, the use of alternatives has been outlawed and the prosecutor
>
> has
>
>>>to pick one or the other right from the start.
>>
>>I'd be grateful for a pointer to where this ruling of the European Court
>>of Human Rights can be found.
>>
>
>
> Not a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, AIUI, it comes from an
> interpretation of the European Convention of Human Rights requiring details
> of a charge put to an accused being closely defined.

The Human Rights legislation gets held responsible for a lot these days,
but the need to define the charges properly predates it. It's been a
long time since a prosecutor could get away with saying merely that the
accused "did something bad" or "broke the law".

I'm still curious that you were so specific that alternative charges are
"outlawed". I'd like to know because if it's true I'll have to stop
doing it.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

 

[David Martin]

On 16/12/04 12:38 am, in article [email protected],
"JLB" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> I'm still curious that you were so specific that alternative charges are
> "outlawed". I'd like to know because if it's true I'll have to stop
> doing it.

I'm sure that defence counsel are competent enough that if it were illegal
they would have brought it to your attention already.

It may be a case of not having specified the lesser charge before trial, or
a misinterpretation of the legislation.

...d

 

[Trevor Barton]

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 07:38:57 +1100, Sniper8052 wrote:
>
> Mark McN Wrote:
>> Response to Simon Brooke:
>> > A young man (17, I think, but I might have that wrong - I wasn't
>> paying
>> > that much attention at the start of the story) was charged with
>> > careless driving after being caught doing 90mph on the wrong side of
>> a
>> > 20mph limit road.
>> >
>> > He was fined £600 pounds and got a few points on his license... and
>> > walked free.
>>
>> http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/hi/news/5033618.html
>>
>> £600, five points, and his dad's taken the keys away.
>>
>>
>> "...a defence agent stressed it had been committed when there was no
>> other traffic or pedestrians around."
>>
>> So that's all right then.
>>
>> --
>> Mark, UK.
>> We hope to hear him swear, we love to hear him squeak,
>> We like to see him biting fingers in his horny beak.
>
> Funny that there's never anyone else around untill the little sods hit
> some one isn't it?

Oh no, surely not? In my local paper the court reports are almost
always convictions of people who were doing whatever it was for the
very first time. The number of drunk drivers who had never done
it in 30 years of driving, honest m'lud, it was the first time
ever I had exceeded 30mph in a 30 zone, Oh no, m'lud, I had
previously never ever driven without insurance before cross
my heart and hope to die ...

Surely they can't all be telling lies to the court?

--
Trevor Barton

 

[Duncan Gray]

"JLB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Duncan Gray wrote:
> > "JLB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>Duncan Gray wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Since ECHR, the use of alternatives has been outlawed and the
prosecutor
> >
> > has
> >
> >>>to pick one or the other right from the start.
> >>
> >>I'd be grateful for a pointer to where this ruling of the European Court
> >>of Human Rights can be found.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Not a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, AIUI, it comes from
an
> > interpretation of the European Convention of Human Rights requiring
details
> > of a charge put to an accused being closely defined.
>
> The Human Rights legislation gets held responsible for a lot these days,
> but the need to define the charges properly predates it. It's been a
> long time since a prosecutor could get away with saying merely that the
> accused "did something bad" or "broke the law".
>
> I'm still curious that you were so specific that alternative charges are
> "outlawed". I'd like to know because if it's true I'll have to stop
> doing it.
>

I'm not directly involved in the cases any more so I'm afraid I can't be
specific on where the ruling came from. In the same way though, officers
around here are told charging drivers with failing to have driving
licence/insurance/test certificate or alternatively failing to produce the
documents is also no longer accepted.