Safe Speed Forums

This is a worrying precedent.

The fiscal bungled the speeding charge (as they frequently do ) so tried to apply 'reckless conduct'.

The scary bit is this...



Theoretically this non-statutory offence can now be applied to any activity the politically correct people of the time convince the QC's should be punishable with no evidence of actual harm, just a belief (mistaken or otherwise) that danger could happen.

Disregarding the debate over his alleged activites behind the wheel, I hope he appeals this one all the way.....

Messrs Schumacker(s) & Co drive way in excess of those speeds practically every day of their lives.
Who on earth is fit to decide whether a given speed is reckless or not?

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

The problem I have with this decision is that it involves the misapplication of a law that was never intended for this purpose. Moreover this decision has made a fundamental shift in the proof required for the offence.

It is almost as if they were going all out for retribution against the driver in an attempt to maintain the party line that speeding is inherently dangerous, regardless of the greater cost in terms of the law.

I only hope that this will now apply to our 159 mph cop who was trying out his new toy.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

I most certainly don't. It would be the worst possible scenario for there to be a legal precedent that says speed X = culpable and reckless regardless of the circumstances.

Fortunately this decision only applies in Scotland, and it would seem that the defender has the will and means to fight it.

I agree with what you’re saying and I don’t see who can judge that he was culpable and reckless. I was trying to make a point that what’s good for one is good for another. In my opinion they’re just going out to nail this guy because they don’t like to be beaten on technicalities, if they nail him then they should nail the cop.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

I disagree as that is just making matters worse. It might appear to be fair to do so, but a simplified 'one size fits all' rule is what has got us into this mess in the first place. Police drivers are trained to an objective level of skill and ability and there rightly should be a recognition of this.

To say that their qualifications or any other factor, bar speed, is irrelevant in a measure of culpability and recklessness when viewing their actions is a dangerous and counter-productive precedent. In fact it is verging on insulting and will damage the credibility of police or any other form of training or qualification.

The defendant in this particular case also had training in driving at speed, where is his recognition?

I'm with Dixie on this one, if the judges are now going to openly state that driving at (or above) X speed is reckless & culpable regardless of any other factors, then that surely has to apply to every last one of us regardless of who (or what) we are.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

AAArgh. You are missing the point. By all means accept that this may be the consequence of such a decision, but it is a bad decision and such application will just make matters even worse.

Without getting too 'legalese', the offence of culpable and reckless behaviour is a common law one, not statutory, so there was no objective test to begin with, just one that has come out of decisions and precedent. There is still very much, and very correctly, room for interpretation here and I for one hope that a different test is applied in each and every case based on the circumstances. If that means a policeman is treated differently for good and acceptable reasons then so be it. Do otherwise and you might as well begin disbanding the police force.....

To me the idea of 159MPH = culpable and reckless, full stop, is TRAGICALLY wrong.



EXACTLY my point. This decision sweeps aside all other considerations (or rather it seems ok now for the judge to assume negative considerations with no proof).

I agree it is wrong, and I’m not disputing that, however if judges want to apply these rules, then they must apply to another. Let’s say both drivers are of the same qualifications and the same circumstances apply for both drivers, in the same cars, doing the same speed, and the only difference is one being a police officer. Why should the police officer get treated any differently to anyone else? And don’t forget the officer in question was not answering an emergency, he decide he wanted to see how fast his new car would go.



Do otherwise and you’ll drive an even bigger wedge between the public and the police.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

Any law or precedent that creates the link between numerical speed and recklessness with no other factor is inherrently wrong.

However,

If the scottish case stands, then it should also (morally) apply to the speeding policeman.

This may on the face of it be bad as it will impinge on our lifes not to mention livelihoods. But the situation will certainly highlight the absurdity of the speed kills message and further undermine the politically correct nanny statistas. In the long term it may precipitate a real public backlsah and restore some common sense to our land.

I think you'll find that he was driving with one hand at that speed and holding a mobile phone to his ear with the other whilst conducting a telephone conversation.
Does that alter the views of anyone here or that possibly OK as well?

But we are not saying that. They are saying that ANY driver in ANY car in ANY circumstances travelling at 159MPH is being culpably reckless. ALL other factors irrelevant. Doesn't matter if they have the best qualifications in the world or not, policeman, fire chief, ambulance driver or pizza delivery boy.

The standard of proof has to be restored ie. was there any evidence of real danger.

This has nothing to do with police bashing and I am not suggesting that a warrant card alone should make things different (and neither is anybody, so to suggest it as a scenario is a red herring). There are similarities between this case and the high profile one about the cop (mainly the speed), but there are MANY MANY more differences, and these are being swept aside.

There are fundamental issues over the evidence presented by the prosecutor in this case. Least of all it was never actually proven that the defender was in fact the driver as the NIP process was bungled. This is why a common law offence was applied and this bizarre manipulation of the 'evidence' to convict of such an offence has been drummed up on appeal. The original sheriff found not guilty due to insufficient evidence - this means that the above is and remains an unproven allegation.

That's all I was saying in my first post.



That's what I hope/believe will happen. IMO they’re digging themselves deeper and deeper.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

It is unlikely to provoke a backlash. It is more likely to provoke the reaction that the policeman should receive the same punishment (which tacitly is the very reaction they are looking for ie. ALL SPEEDING IS WRONG/DANGEROUS/DEADLY/CULPABLE).

Why? Because people want to seek ignorant retribution rather than consider the facts and circumstances of each case. The test for culpable and reckless behaviour historically allowed for each case to be measured on a level of if there was real danger, not a technical infringement.

Its misapplication to a bungled speeding charge effectively tries to turn it into a technical offence which most people will ignorantly accept because they have been programmed to believe that all offence are absolute and technical (a la speeding).

You guys are missing the point and I hate to say it but in doing so you play the game by their rules. They were 'out to get' this guy and make an example of him. If they do then all you are asking for is the head of the cop by the same duff set of rules. Hardly a victory for either side, and the concept of Safe Speed is damaged permanently.

Actually the photograph showed the driver holding what "appeared" to be a mobile phone. I do believe it has been said in some reports of the story that the defendant's cellphone records show his phone was not in use at the time the picture was taken.

Whether the driver was indeed holding anything is still in doubt anyway, as the photo isn't even of good enough quality to positively identify who was driving.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

AS JC seems to have admitted driving at 240 mph, presumably on the public highway in France, in the Bugatti Veyron, despite his clean licence is he culpable and reckless?