Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Wed Jun 03, 2026 06:52

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 10:55 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 16:34
Posts: 923
Location: UK
A case to point at if you here of people suggesting anything similar, people seem to think that they won't get caught or that they would get a slap on the wrist.

Businessman jailed over lies to protect speeding daughter
05 January 2005

A BUSINESSMAN who lied to police to stop his daughter getting three points on her driving licence has been jailed for four months.
David Simmonite's daughter was caught by a speed camera as she drove an Audi A3 belonging to him at 87mph on the A1 at Grantham in Lincolnshire.
But when sent a form requesting the identity of the driver, 60-year-old Simmonite filled in the name of a French man from whom he had previously bought property.
Police traced the man to France and discovered he had been at home, receiving treatment for a kidney complaint, at the time of the offence.
Lincoln Crown Court heard how officers then went to see Simmonite, of Malt Kiln Hall, Malt Kiln Lane, Thornton, Bradford, who admitted he had lied so his daughter's licence would not be endorsed.
Simmonite admitted perverting the course of justice as a result of the incident in March.
Judge Peter Clark told him: "This was a calculated deception. People cannot pervert the course of justice in this way and expect to get away with it."
Mitigating, solicitor Godfrey Napthine said Simmonite had previously led a blameless life. "He is in the very unfortunate position of only having realised the gravity of what he involved himself in once it unfolded. He simply thought he was saving his daughter from penalty points on her licence. He feels very keenly the shame of what he has done."
Mr Napthine said Simmonite had suffered from a heart problem since his arrest, a condition he believed had been brought on by the incident.
"He has an appointment with a cardiologist later this month to have what is potentially a serious condition investigated," Mr Napthine told the court.
[/url]


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 12:39 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 10:44
Posts: 485
Location: Glos, UK
Well I'm glad he's locked up in jail - he's clearly a dangerous risk to the population of this country... :roll:

FFS, car thieves, burglars and muggers get off with less than 4 months jailtime. :evil:

_________________
Carl Prescott


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 14:13 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 19:19
Posts: 1050
Seems very excessive - making an example to deter others type stuff.

Now had he said - I can't remember it might have been me, my wife, duaghter or frog bloke. Can you send us the photos? Then he'd probably have got a 'nice try, it wont work next time' letter, from the scamerati.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 14:51 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 13:36
Posts: 1339
Doesn't seem any worse than the scammers bringing a prosecution against someone even though they know it will fail, in the hope that the victim will pay up out of fear to avoid court.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 20:17 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 09:16
Posts: 3655
CarlP wrote:
car thieves, burglars and muggers get off with less than 4 months jailtime. :evil:


Probation usualy

But if it is a motoring related crime...throw away the key... :evil:

Thats why there are more people in jail for minor motoring offences than burglary.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 22:08 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 00:14
Posts: 535
Location: Victoria, Australia
Unfortunately for this bloke "perverting the course of justice" is a VERY serious crime and should incur a greater penalty that many other crimes. :!:

BUT, to charge this bloke with that offence seems bloody ridiculous. :evil:

I (know someone who) used similar responses to his in the past over parking fines but the person overseas was a friend and they just threw the letter in the bin. (got away with it!) :D

I am rather surprised at the lengths the police have gone to investigate such a minor offence. How much time was wasted that could have been used to investigate a genuinely serious crime?

And all over 60 pounds and 3 points :evil:

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 09:39 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 14:04
Posts: 2325
Location: The interweb
So the police went all the way to France to question this bloke? For a 3 point and £60 fine offence.

Would they put as much effort into it if it were a burglar?

It does seem a little harsh to prosecute when he actually admitted what he had done.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 09:46 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6737
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
While I entirely agree that this prosecution was disproportionate, surely the moral of the story is that if you want to claim someone else was driving, you need to make sure that person will confirm the story.

Do we know whether he's the father of Stephanie and Rachel Simmonite of motorsport fame, as it's a fairly rare name?

(Incidentally, Compo's surname in "Last of the Summer Wine" was also Simmonite :lol: )

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:30 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 18:41
Posts: 893
PeterE wrote:
Do we know whether he's the father of Stephanie and Rachel Simmonite of motorsport fame, as it's a fairly rare name?

An Internet search or two reveals that it is indeed the famed Simmonite rallying family. At least:
  • This quote reveals that the sisters' father's name is David; and
  • This one reveals that the sisters have established a catering business with the same address as that reported for Mr Simmonite in the Yorkshire Post.

I wonder if the reason why the authorities went to all that trouble was because it was that family; and that they would not have bothered if it were joe public.

_________________
Will


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 11:07 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 00:24
Posts: 2400
Location: Kendal, Cumbria
Not that the family has an entirely unblemished driving history...

http://www.thisisbradford.co.uk/bradfor ... ws8RM.html

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 12:25 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 18:41
Posts: 893
JT wrote:
Not that the family has an entirely unblemished driving history...

http://www.thisisbradford.co.uk/bradfor ... ws8RM.html

Of course, that was over six years ago, Rachael served her penance, and we don't even know whether it was her driving the Audi. The DUI from 1998 only strengthens my suspicion that the authorities gave the speeding case "special treatment".

_________________
Will


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 13:23 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6737
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
willcove wrote:
Of course, that was over six years ago, Rachael served her penance, and we don't even know whether it was her driving the Audi. The DUI from 1998 only strengthens my suspicion that the authorities gave the speeding case "special treatment".

But even so you can't escape the conclusion that her father was distinctly stupid to name someone on the form who was easily traceable and who hadn't agreed to the defence.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 13:36 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
PeterE wrote:
willcove wrote:
Of course, that was over six years ago, Rachael served her penance, and we don't even know whether it was her driving the Audi. The DUI from 1998 only strengthens my suspicion that the authorities gave the speeding case "special treatment".

But even so you can't escape the conclusion that her father was distinctly stupid to name someone on the form who was easily traceable and who hadn't agreed to the defence.


Perhaps a reasonable man, not familiar with camera enforcement practice would have judged that no such enquiry would take place.

Don't forget we've seen this daft official behaviour before.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 13:51 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 09:16
Posts: 3655
Homer wrote:
So the police went all the way to France to question this bloke? For a 3 point and £60 fine offence.


No..it's called politics. You single someone out, commit all your resources to gettin a result, then make a big PR case out of it to scare of anyone else who is thinking about it.

I bet 99% of cases con't even get a second look.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 13:52 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 18:41
Posts: 893
PeterE wrote:
willcove wrote:
Of course, that was over six years ago, Rachael served her penance, and we don't even know whether it was her driving the Audi. The DUI from 1998 only strengthens my suspicion that the authorities gave the speeding case "special treatment".

But even so you can't escape the conclusion that her father was distinctly stupid to name someone on the form who was easily traceable and who hadn't agreed to the defence.

Stupid? yes, I agree. Also, I don't condone his deceit, even though I believe the "speed uber alles" ethos to be fatally flawed. However that is entirely distinct from whether the authorities discriminated against the Simmonites. That is, whether they would have attacked all such cases in the same manner or whether they committed additional resources because of who was involved.

_________________
Will


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 13:54 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 09:59
Posts: 3544
Location: Shropshire
SafeSpeed wrote:
PeterE wrote:
willcove wrote:
Of course, that was over six years ago, Rachael served her penance, and we don't even know whether it was her driving the Audi. The DUI from 1998 only strengthens my suspicion that the authorities gave the speeding case "special treatment".

But even so you can't escape the conclusion that her father was distinctly stupid to name someone on the form who was easily traceable and who hadn't agreed to the defence.


Perhaps a reasonable man, not familiar with camera enforcement practice would have judged that no such enquiry would take place.


So someone could still be considered reasonable if they purposefully attempted to mislead the legal process believing that it wouldn't go to the lengths it did to verify the information he presented ?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 13:59 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Rigpig wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
PeterE wrote:
willcove wrote:
Of course, that was over six years ago, Rachael served her penance, and we don't even know whether it was her driving the Audi. The DUI from 1998 only strengthens my suspicion that the authorities gave the speeding case "special treatment".

But even so you can't escape the conclusion that her father was distinctly stupid to name someone on the form who was easily traceable and who hadn't agreed to the defence.


Perhaps a reasonable man, not familiar with camera enforcement practice would have judged that no such enquiry would take place.


So someone could still be considered reasonable if they purposefully attempted to mislead the legal process believing that it wouldn't go to the lengths it did to verify the information he presented ?


I was trying to indicate (perhaps not very clearly) that a reasonable man would judge "international enquiries" to be wholly disproportionate for a £60 trivial offence.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 14:07 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 09:59
Posts: 3544
Location: Shropshire
SafeSpeed wrote:
Rigpig wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
PeterE wrote:
willcove wrote:
Of course, that was over six years ago, Rachael served her penance, and we don't even know whether it was her driving the Audi. The DUI from 1998 only strengthens my suspicion that the authorities gave the speeding case "special treatment".

But even so you can't escape the conclusion that her father was distinctly stupid to name someone on the form who was easily traceable and who hadn't agreed to the defence.


Perhaps a reasonable man, not familiar with camera enforcement practice would have judged that no such enquiry would take place.


So someone could still be considered reasonable if they purposefully attempted to mislead the legal process believing that it wouldn't go to the lengths it did to verify the information he presented ?


I was trying to indicate (perhaps not very clearly) that a reasonable man would judge "international enquiries" to be wholly disproportionate for a £60 trivial offence.


I suggest that anyone who actually thought that such an obvious attempt to sidestep their (or a relative's in this instance) responsibilities hadn't been tried before, could hardly be considered reasonable.
If it were that simple, and the authorities just gave up when presented with the prospect of tracing a foreign driver, then everyone would be doing it would'nt they?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 14:13 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6737
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
SafeSpeed wrote:
PeterE wrote:
But even so you can't escape the conclusion that her father was distinctly stupid to name someone on the form who was easily traceable and who hadn't agreed to the defence.

Perhaps a reasonable man, not familiar with camera enforcement practice would have judged that no such enquiry would take place.

To be charitable, it smacks of panic. One would imagine with his daughters' motorsport connections he would not be short of sources of advice on the subject. Perhaps the daughter involved already had nine points on her licence, we don't know.

And making a phone call to France isn't exactly difficult for the police.

If he'd squared it in advance with the French man there's not a lot the police could have done.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 14:16 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Rigpig wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
I was trying to indicate (perhaps not very clearly) that a reasonable man would judge "international enquiries" to be wholly disproportionate for a £60 trivial offence.


I suggest that anyone who actually thought that such an obvious attempt to sidestep their (or a relative's in this instance) responsibilities hadn't been tried before, could hardly be considered reasonable.
If it were that simple, and the authorities just gave up when presented with the prospect of tracing a foreign driver, then everyone would be doing it would'nt they?


This is getting way out of hand - it was really a bit of a throwaway remark in the first place.

My bottom line is I believe that "a reasonable man" would be amazed at the lengths they frequently go to to prosecute camera tickets.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 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 : 0.015s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]