A Welsh man has been jailed (good news, so far) for using a laser jammer to prevent speed cameras working properly.
tinyurl.com/4e7et6wx
|
I find it odd that "perverting the course of justice" type offences carries far greater penalties (and it seems a lower burden of proof) far in excess of the offence being perverted.
It should surely carry exactly the same (ok maximum) penalty as he offence.
|
|
On a similar basis, I wonder why thieves wearing disguises or masks are not done for the same?
|
|
A valid point. Ditto those who cover up CCTV cameras.
|
>> On a similar basis, I wonder why thieves wearing disguises or masks are not done
>> for the same?
>>
Obstructing a police officer would seem to be a more logical charges those cases, as well as that of ghe the motorist. Perverting the course of justice would more reasonably aimed at those in the Post Office and Fujitsu who deliberately lied and convicted / killed innocent people. Yet no charges have (yet?) been brought against them AFAIK…
|
>> On a similar basis, I wonder why thieves wearing disguises or masks are not done
>> for the same?
I think, though don't know, that if you put a mask over your number plate you would not be prosecuted for PCOJ, but some other C&U offence.
|
>> I think, though don't know, that if you put a mask over your number plate
>> you would not be prosecuted for PCOJ, but some other C&U offence.
There was at one time a motorcyclist's dodge of covering up the number plate when parked in contravention. Theory was that wardens were not allowed to interfere with it as in doing so they committed an offence.
Nowadays the UK rules are highly prescriptive as to the layout, font, colour and background of plates. Reflective, greyed and honeycomb tint finishes are all banned.
|
>> Nowadays the UK rules are highly prescriptive as to the layout, font, colour and background
>> of plates. Reflective, greyed and honeycomb tint finishes are all banned.
Reflective? I think you'll find the current white and yellow plates have to be reflective.
|
>> I find it odd that "perverting the course of justice" type offences carries far greater
>> penalties (and it seems a lower burden of proof) far in excess of the offence
>> being perverted.
>>
>> It should surely carry exactly the same (ok maximum) penalty as he offence.
Are you seriously suggesting PCOJ for a speeding offence should only be punishable by a fine and points?
|
|
No - they should have the option of an awareness coure for a first offence!
|
A technical question.
If he was not speeding can he be guilty of perverting the course of justice of no crime has been committed?
I think there was a case where people notifying others of a speed trap were prosecuted but were found not guilty because it could not be shown that they knew the people they were warning were speeding.
|
Roughly 65 years ago my primary school teacher's husband was fined £5 for warning others of the police speed trap through a local village.
Doctor Donald (Chemistry Phd) was the chief chemist at the local ICI factory a few miles along the road. He held up a cardboard sign a few hundred yards from the village warning of trouble ahead. No radar guns at that time but 2 points in the road & a stopwatch + a lay-by to interview the speeders.
|
>> Roughly 65 years ago my primary school teacher's husband was fined £5 for warning others
>> of the police speed trap through a local village.
>>
Interesting. The local rag specifically states where camera vans will be down to the exact road, with the consent of the authorities!
|
>> Are you seriously suggesting PCOJ for a speeding offence should only be punishable by a
>> fine and points?
I am seriously suggesting it should only carry automatic guilt and only the maximum punishment for the offence.
Thats Justice isn't it?
|
>> I am seriously suggesting it should only carry automatic guilt and only the maximum punishment
>> for the offence.
>>
>> Thats Justice isn't it?
His actions were an attempt to destroy evidence of a potential crime so attempting to pervert the course of justice is a reasonable charge.
In this case the camera operator was sufficiently technically clued up and on the ball to spot what was happening. The probability is that another operator on another day would just have said damn and blast an looked for the next speeder. Result is people getting away and the handful caught getting fine/points.
If he's allowed to get off with fine/points then everybody might as well fit laser jammers to their car.
Also you say something upthread about the burden of proof. You may be mixing up burden ie who has to prove their case (in this case the Prosecution) with standard. In either speeding or Attempting PCOJ the standard is beyond reasonable doubt - the bench or Jury must be 'sure'.
The jury duly convicted. A bench of Magistrates faced with evidence from a properly approved and calibrated speed camera would do the same.
Eight months seems pretty light to me but I guess it's in line with others like Chris Huhne and his ex-wife as first time offenders.
|
>> If he's allowed to get off with fine/points then everybody might as well fit laser
>> jammers to their car.
Why? if you fit them you get convicted of the offence with its maximum penalty. Whats to be gained.
|
>> Eight months seems pretty light to me
For a minor motoring offence. When assault and muggings on pensioners get warnings or worse probation? When much less effort is put in by the police to detect and prosecute more serious offences?
No wonder peoples views of british justice is poor at best.
|
>>
>> No wonder peoples views of british justice is poor at best.
>>
Crimes against the State are always punished more harshly.
Last edited by: zippy on Fri 30 Jul 21 at 13:00
|
>>
>> >> Eight months seems pretty light to me
>>
>> For a minor motoring offence. When assault and muggings on pensioners get warnings or worse
>> probation? When much less effort is put in by the police to detect and prosecute
>> more serious offences?
Surely the point is there that more effort and heavier punishments should be put into other things, not less into motoring offences?
It shouldn't be an either/or.
|
>>Are you seriously suggesting PCOJ for a speeding offence should only be punishable by a
>> fine and points?
On second thoughts, I am also suggesting that PCOJ is an abuse of legal process in this case.
|
>> On second thoughts, I am also suggesting that PCOJ is an abuse of legal process
>> in this case.
That may make my previous post a bit TL;DR but it's exactly my point. PCOJ, even for a minor offence, is serious criminality.
|
>> >> On second thoughts, I am also suggesting that PCOJ is an abuse of legal
>> process
>> >> in this case.
>>
>> That may make my previous post a bit TL;DR but it's exactly my point. PCOJ,
>> even for a minor offence, is serious criminality.
And therefore completely inappropriate in cases like this.
My comment about abuse of legal process is abuse by the judiciary, not the motorist.
|
>> My comment about abuse of legal process is abuse by the judiciary, not the motorist.
It was the Police/CPS who chose to charge PCOJ. I guess the Judge could throw it out as an abuse of process but they'd only be likely to do so after a claim to that effect from the Defence.
A Judge who thought, on the papers, a PCOJ charge was pushing the envelope would probably still ask the parties for submissions. The only time they might throw it out of their own initiative would be where the Bench had already had it made clear that cases put in a particular way would not be tolerated.
|
>> I find it odd that "perverting the course of justice" type offences carries far greater
>> penalties (and it seems a lower burden of proof) far in excess of the offence
>> being perverted.
>>
>> It should surely carry exactly the same (ok maximum) penalty as he offence.
>>
Because this is undermining the very fabric of a civilised society.
He was putting himself outside the law and that cannot be.
|
>> He was putting himself outside the law and that cannot be.
So does the burglar who wears gloves to avoid leaving fingerprints.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 30 Jul 21 at 18:53
|
>>It should surely carry exactly the same (ok maximum) penalty as he offence.
No. Because then everybody would have them knowing that whilst it was certain they would be nicked for speeding, it was not certain they would be nicked for using a jammer.
There would be no downside.
|
>> No. Because then everybody would have them knowing that whilst it was certain they would
>> be nicked for speeding, it was not certain they would be nicked for using a
>> jammer.
>>
>> There would be no downside.
That. Exactly.
|
No, Not. you nick every car that does not give a reading. Maximum penalty for offence, much greater deterrence than naughty driving school.
Far too many inconstancies in use of PCOJ - like the number plate thing,
|
|
Whereas a heavy penalty just makes it go away all together.
|
>> No, Not. you nick every car that does not give a reading.
What do you nick them for?
>>
>> Far too many inconstancies in use of PCOJ - like the number plate thing,
Creating a false trail/blame (like Fiona Onasanya and the Huhnes) or interfering with evidence, as here, are both slam dunk PCOJ. CPS Guidance is here:
www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/public-justice-offences-incorporating-charging-standard
It's serious law breaking; triable on indictment only ie automatic Crown Court.
|
Swansea Man Jailed for Using Laser Jammer - Zero
