Safe Speed Forums

Policeman caught speeding at 100mph 'because he was late for work'
A police officer with more than 20 years experience, Matthew Stott, was allowed to keep his licence despite admitting speeding at 100mph because he did not want to be “late for work”, a court heard.

By Andrew Hough
Published: 7:00AM BST 03 Sep 2009

The Suffolk police constable, 40, was suffering “stress-related problems” at work when he was recorded speeding at more than 30 mph above the normal limit earlier this year, South East Suffolk magistrates court was told.

But he instead of banning him from driving, the magistrate decided to put six penalty points on his previously clean driving licence instead and issue him with a fine.


He was also fined £320 plus £85 costs with a £15 victim surcharge.

Road safety campaigners last night reacted with fury, labelling the decision an example of “one rule for police and another for everybody else”.

Experts say that while the final decision rests with the judge, under the law most motorists caught doing 100mph would expect to be banned.

The father of three, and a 20 year veteran, is now facing an internal investigation from Suffolk police, which could lead to disciplinary action.

The court was told the officer was recorded speeding in his Vauxhall Vectra on the A14 dual carriageway at Bucklesham near Ipswich, Suffolk.

He had been caught by a mobile camera van parked in a lay-by at 9 am as he was rushing to work on May 6, prosecutors said.

The court heard he worked in Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, neighbourhood response team that dealt with 999 calls.

Ben Gordon, defending Stott, told the court: "He was on his way to work in the morning.

“Due to difficulties he was suffering at the time, he was desperate not to be late for work.

"He had been suffering stress-related problems.”

He added: “He regrets what has happened.

"He accepts his judgement was wrong."

Anne Walker, the presiding magistrate, said she would not ban from him driving after taking into account his early guilty plea and mitigating factors.

Claire Armstrong, co-founder of Safe Speed, a road safety group, said the decision “defied belief”, labelling it one that set a bad example for others drivers.

“There is always a danger that when police are not banned for offences that others are very likely to be, it puts out a double standard that encourages the hypocritical belief that there is one rule for them and one rule for everyone else,” she said outside court.

“That alone is driving the rift between the police and the public.

“When other people are caught driving at 100mph they are usually banned, or sometimes even worse.”

She added: “It defies belief really.”

In June, three High Court judges ruled that the “special skill” of a police driver was an “irrelevant circumstance” when considering whether driving was dangerous.

Their ruling on the issue of a driver's skills arose out of the case of Sergeant Craig Bannister, 30, of Briton Ferry, Neath, South Wales, who was originally sentenced to five months in Jail after earlier being found guilty of dangerous driving.

Bannister, who qualified as an advanced police driver a month before the accident, was driving on the M4 near Swansea when his BMW 5 series spun out of control after he reached speeds of up to 120mph.

A Suffolk Police spokesman declined to answer a series of questions, due to an internal inquiry.

"There will be an internal investigation and so we cannot comment further at this stage,” he said.

They would not confirm he was still on active service.

A Department of Transport spokeswoman said it was up to a judge’s discretion on each case.

“The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 indicates that a judge may consider a disqualification for excessive speed however this is not mandatory,” she said.

“Each case will be for the judge or magistrate to consider individually.

“Where no disqualification is given, the offender must however be given an endorsement on their licence.”

Latest figures show just 0.1 per cent of officers caught speeding by cameras were fined, with police vehicles activating speed cameras more than 107,000 times.

Policeman caught speeding at 100mph 'because he was late for work'
A police officer with more than 20 years experience, Matthew Stott, was allowed to keep his licence despite admitting speeding at 100mph because he did not want to be “late for work”, a court heard.

By Andrew Hough
Published: 7:00AM BST 03 Sep 2009

The Suffolk police constable, 40, was suffering “stress-related problems” at work when he was recorded speeding at more than 30 mph above the normal limit earlier this year, South East Suffolk magistrates court was told.

But he instead of banning him from driving, the magistrate decided to put six penalty points on his previously clean driving licence instead and issue him with a fine.


Stott, of Stowmarket, Suffolk, who admitted speeding, was also fined £320 plus £85 costs with a £15 victim surcharge.

Road safety campaigners last night reacted with fury, labelling the decision an example of “one rule for police and another for everybody else”.

Experts say that while the final decision rests with the judge, under the law most motorists caught doing 100mph would expect to be banned.

The father of three, and a 20 year veteran, is now facing an internal investigation from Suffolk police, which could lead to disciplinary action.

The court was told the officer was recorded speeding in his Vauxhall Vectra on the A14 dual carriageway at Bucklesham near Ipswich, Suffolk.

He had been caught by a mobile camera van parked in a lay-by at 9 am as he was rushing to work on May 6, prosecutors said.

The court heard he worked in Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, neighbourhood response team that dealt with 999 calls.

Ben Gordon, defending Stott, told the court: "He was on his way to work in the morning.

“Due to difficulties he was suffering at the time, he was desperate not to be late for work.

"He had been suffering stress-related problems.”

He added: “He regrets what has happened.

"He accepts his judgement was wrong."

Anne Walker, the presiding magistrate, said she would not ban from him driving after taking into account his early guilty plea and mitigating factors.

Claire Armstrong, co-founder of Safe Speed, a road safety group, said the decision “defied belief”, labelling it one that set a bad example for others drivers.

“There is always a danger that when police are not banned for offences that others are very likely to be, it puts out a double standard that encourages the hypocritical belief that there is one rule for them and one rule for everyone else,” she said outside court.

“That alone is driving the rift between the police and the public.

“When other people are caught driving at 100mph they are usually banned, or sometimes even worse.”

She added: “It defies belief really.”

In June, three High Court judges ruled that the “special skill” of a police driver was an “irrelevant circumstance” when considering whether driving was dangerous.

Their ruling on the issue of a driver's skills arose out of the case of Sergeant Craig Bannister, 30, of Briton Ferry, Neath, South Wales, who was originally sentenced to five months in Jail after earlier being found guilty of dangerous driving.

Bannister, who qualified as an advanced police driver a month before the accident, was driving on the M4 near Swansea when his BMW 5 series spun out of control after he reached speeds of up to 120mph.

A Suffolk Police spokesman declined to answer a series of questions, due to an internal inquiry.

"There will be an internal investigation and so we cannot comment further at this stage,” he said.

They would not confirm he was still on active service.

A Department of Transport spokeswoman said it was up to a judge’s discretion on each case.

“The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 indicates that a judge may consider a disqualification for excessive speed however this is not mandatory,” she said.

“Each case will be for the judge or magistrate to consider individually.

“Where no disqualification is given, the offender must however be given an endorsement on their licence.”

Latest figures show just 0.1 per cent of officers caught speeding by cameras were fined, with police vehicles activating speed cameras more than 107,000 times.

100mph on a 70mph duel carriageway is not unsafe.
on one side...
it is quite common to escape a ban for 100-109mph if you have a clean record.
on the other side...
Mitigation allows extra credit for police fire and ambulance in the magistraites sentencing guidelines.
Why should a policeman or ambulance driver get extra mitigation compared with any other professional driver who would be hit harder? !!!

This whole campaign (if you can call it that) is based upon the skill of the driver and self determining driving rules; that is probably why a police driver, not all police are trained to higher levels of driving, are given some credit for that training. I believe a professional driver would be also however it depends on the drivers exact profession; an HGV driver perhaps would not be skilled in high speed driving so would credit no mitigation for speed perhaps.
If the drivers ability is mitigating then it would apply to anyone who wishes to forward it, the police officer profession does not and should not give automatic mitigation just as it shouln't be used as automatic censure in sentencing.

100mph on one side of a dual carriageway is less safe than 70 mph, that's why speed limits are used to manage the sped of vehicles and self determining methods of maximum speed by the driver is not and in my belief never will be.