Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Wed Apr 29, 2026 17:42

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 03:12 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7130028.stm
Quote:
'Speeding police 'not prosecuted'
By Martin Shankleman
BBC News

A South Yorkshire police officer caught speeding
Image
Officers were caught speeding while on duty

Roadside camera photographs of South Yorkshire Police officers caught speeding, but who later had their cases dropped, have been obtained by the BBC.

The pictures were released after South Yorkshire's chief constable, Meredydd Hughes, was banned from driving for speeding at 90mph in a 60mph zone.

Those in cars caught on camera were all on duty but none was prosecuted after refusing to say who was at the wheel.

The force said cases were not pursued due to drivers not being identified.

Public interest

The pictures, obtained by BBC Newsnight under the Freedom of Information Act, all showed officers speeding - mostly in the Rotherham and Doncaster areas.

They were released following the intervention of the Information Commissioner, who rejected the force's reason for non-release.

The force had claimed that releasing the images was not in the public interest.

A South Yorkshire police officer caught speeding
Most of the officers caught were in the Doncaster and Rotherham areas

In one case it claimed that if the occupants of a speeding police van were identified because of publication, there was a "risk that those individuals will be vilified and as a consequence their mental or physical health will suffer".

But the commissioner rejected that argument, saying the information had been "inappropriately withheld" and that it was in the public interest for the material to be disclosed.

Overall, the BBC investigation uncovered 26 cases between 2003 and 2006, where South Yorkshire police officers caught speeding on duty failed to admit they were driving and cases were dropped.

'Due diligence'

A spokesman for South Yorkshire police said the cases could no go ahead because they had used "due diligence" in trying to identify the drivers and, because they could not be identified, a prosecution would fail.

A South Yorkshire police officer caught speeding
The force said releasing the pictures was not in the public interest

He added that procedures had now been reformed and earlier this year the chief constable had taken himself to court for failing to identify the driver of a speeding police car.

Mr Hughes, 49, a former chair of roads policing at the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), apologised after being caught on camera doing 90mph in a 60mph zone on the A5 at Chirk near Wrexham in May.

He stood down from his role at Acpo after he was summonsed for the offence, which happened when he was on holiday.

He was disqualified for 42 days and fined £350 by Wrexham magistrates.

It seems that Med's case has triggered a bout of whistle blowing!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 08:44 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
I suspect it’s rife across the country. All part of the establishments’ dictatorship of the British population. :speakno: I hope there’s more out there willing to blow the whistle and keep the pressure on.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 09:52 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 00:42
Posts: 832
It seems this came to light through use of the Freedom of Information Act and a ruling by the Information Commissioner. Now this has been established, it would be possible to ask all other police forces the same question.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 18:03 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 02:50
Posts: 2868
Location: Dorset
Quote:
Those in cars caught on camera were all on duty but none was prosecuted after refusing to say who was at the wheel.

Why are they exempt from S172?
Don't they keep logs of who was driving?

_________________
Andrew.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 19:23 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 09:16
Posts: 3655
Ziltro wrote:
Quote:
Those in cars caught on camera were all on duty but none was prosecuted after refusing to say who was at the wheel.

Why are they exempt from S172?
Don't they keep logs of who was driving?


I think the Police operate in a similar way to Companies. If a company fails to comply with S172 the Directors are liable. The only thing is a Director has NEVER been prosecuted under S172. It continues to be a loophole of sorts.

Of course some one knows who was driving. But they treat it with the same contempt most every one else does.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 20:18 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 15:49
Posts: 393
Interestingly, because of the new corporate manslaughter law that comes in next year, where I work we're having to tighten up on logging who's driving our vehicles just in case one of our drivers is involved in a fatal and we have to prove "due diligence" -- so as a result of this new law, it could well be that most companies will start to hold the records necessary for speeding tickets too.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 03:30 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 19:41
Posts: 201
Location: North East Wales
Gizmo wrote:
Ziltro wrote:
Quote:
Those in cars caught on camera were all on duty but none was prosecuted after refusing to say who was at the wheel.

Why are they exempt from S172?
Don't they keep logs of who was driving?


I think the Police operate in a similar way to Companies. If a company fails to comply with S172 the Directors are liable. The only thing is a Director has NEVER been prosecuted under S172. It continues to be a loophole of sorts.

Of course some one knows who was driving. But they treat it with the same contempt most every one else does.


I don’t think this is correct . Under RTA 1988 S172 (as amended) there is the defence under

(4) “ A person shall not be guilty of an offence …… if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was”.

However for Companies this provision is disallowed by sect (6) “ Where the alleged offender is a body corporate…… subsection (4) above shall not apply unless ……..the alleged offender shows that no record was kept of the persons who drove the vehicle and that the failure to keep a record was reasonable.”

CPS have a policy of claiming in mags courts that this puts a legal obligation on Companies to maintain some unspecified log that can always identify who is behind the wheel. In North Wales they have a pre-prepared speech suggesting that all that’s needed is a sheet on a clipboard next to the hook for the pool car keys. NW mags have also convicted companies who have stated they did maintain records of their vehicles including hire vans. The defendants even brought examples as evidence to court who have disposed of the records before the NIP eventually came through months after the offence. This amounts to either a presumption of perjury or the magistrates are misled in their interpretation of Sect (6) by the clerks.

There is the provision in sect (5) Where ….. the offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to neglect on the part of, a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, ……, he, as well as the body corporate, is guilty of that offence ….”
As for directors never being prosecuted there is anecdotal evidence on various fora pistonheads directors and Co Secs of small companies have been convicted

_________________
Richard Ceen
We live in a time where emotions and feelings count far more than the truth, and there is a vast ignorance of science (James Lovelock 2005)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.017s | 10 Queries | GZIP : Off ]