Saturday, August 26, 2006
One rule for one ...
The Times reports here on Friday about the policeman who was driving at 159 miles per hour "honing his skills at the wheel following an advanced driving course".
The case has already been before the courts, he was previously acquitted, but the High Court overturned the acquittal and ordered a re-trial.
From the article: "the policeman claimed that he had been encouraged by his trainers to practise his driving skills". This "defence" is basically someone told me to do it, which not surprisingly is a pretty poor defence unless they are sat with you, holding a pistol to your head.
From the article: "District Judge Peter Wallis told Milton: "Your driving falls far beneath the standards expected of a careful and competent driver... In all circumstances I am satisfied to the criminal standard of proof that you are guilty of dangerous driving."
Now I haven't seen the footage and I'd be the first to agree that speeding per se whilst illegal isn't necessarily dangerous. Still 159 mph is clearly pushing the limit somewhat. Now many people will argue that the police have to use these speeds, once they might have had an argument, now we live in a health and safety risk averse society and the judge has found this speed dangerous. So now any police chase that reaches this kind of speed will have to be abandoned for health and safety reasons.
Anyway I digress, when he was previously acquitted, there was something of an outcry, not least because many people regularly break the speed limit with no danger to themselves or anyone else, but if they are caught they are fined and have points added to their licence at 159 mph they would automatically lose their licence and I'd expect some other penalty as well. The court will be deaf to any pleas of loss of job and income and similarly deaf to any evidence of advanced driving skills and qualifications.
He has been convicted now so what sentence does he get? "He (Milton) has suffered quite a lot over the last two and a half years. I am going to grant an absolute discharge."
In other words nothing, no fine, no points, no loss of licence no other penalty, nothing at all. Just how has he "suffered"? Go to the third world and then you'll see some suffering. I don't think that if this had been say a travelling salesman with advanced driving skills, the case had taken two and a half years, the court found him guilty of dangerous driving they'd let him off with an absolute discharge because of the time taken.
Of course he's appealing against his conviction, but I can't see that going anywhere. Strangely there's no mention of the CPS appealing against this unduly lenient sentence, normally I'd be expecting an appeal from them.
The case has already been before the courts, he was previously acquitted, but the High Court overturned the acquittal and ordered a re-trial.
From the article: "the policeman claimed that he had been encouraged by his trainers to practise his driving skills". This "defence" is basically someone told me to do it, which not surprisingly is a pretty poor defence unless they are sat with you, holding a pistol to your head.
From the article: "District Judge Peter Wallis told Milton: "Your driving falls far beneath the standards expected of a careful and competent driver... In all circumstances I am satisfied to the criminal standard of proof that you are guilty of dangerous driving."
Now I haven't seen the footage and I'd be the first to agree that speeding per se whilst illegal isn't necessarily dangerous. Still 159 mph is clearly pushing the limit somewhat. Now many people will argue that the police have to use these speeds, once they might have had an argument, now we live in a health and safety risk averse society and the judge has found this speed dangerous. So now any police chase that reaches this kind of speed will have to be abandoned for health and safety reasons.
Anyway I digress, when he was previously acquitted, there was something of an outcry, not least because many people regularly break the speed limit with no danger to themselves or anyone else, but if they are caught they are fined and have points added to their licence at 159 mph they would automatically lose their licence and I'd expect some other penalty as well. The court will be deaf to any pleas of loss of job and income and similarly deaf to any evidence of advanced driving skills and qualifications.
He has been convicted now so what sentence does he get? "He (Milton) has suffered quite a lot over the last two and a half years. I am going to grant an absolute discharge."
In other words nothing, no fine, no points, no loss of licence no other penalty, nothing at all. Just how has he "suffered"? Go to the third world and then you'll see some suffering. I don't think that if this had been say a travelling salesman with advanced driving skills, the case had taken two and a half years, the court found him guilty of dangerous driving they'd let him off with an absolute discharge because of the time taken.
Of course he's appealing against his conviction, but I can't see that going anywhere. Strangely there's no mention of the CPS appealing against this unduly lenient sentence, normally I'd be expecting an appeal from them.
Tags: justice, crime, fairness
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
