Quote:
Nope. Emergency need is a statutory defence in RTRA 1984 S87.
Nope, S87 provides an exemption from speed limits for vehicles used for certain purposes. It makes no reference to emergencies so, for example, an unmarked CID car would still be able to claim exemption if following a target vehicle - S.87 does not set any requirements for blue lights, sirens etc.
Any Fire Service vehicle (appliance, staff car, BA van, station van etc.) will therefore be exempt IF AND ONLY IF abiding by the speed limit "would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose for which it is being used on that occasion". So appliance drivers have sometimes, quite properly, been 'done' for speeding on the way back to the station. Some brigades do not provide staff cars for their senior officers on call but instead issue magnetic blue lights - these cars are exempt as long as the 'hindrance' test is passed since they are being used for fire service purposes when attending incidents. A retained firefighter travelling to the station on a shout does not, however, have the exemptions and they always used to be reminded of this.
The Act does not make any distinction between statutory and other bodies, so the exemptions apply equally to non statutory fire services (we do still have a very few industrial fire brigades) and to e.g. St John Ambulance.
"Police, fire or ambulance purposes" within the meaning of that Act is interpreted as referring to the purposes of organisation on whose behalf the vehicle is being used. This being the case, the ambulance cars and motorbikes mentioned in an earlier posting are clearly covered by the exemption since they are used in pursuance of ambulance purposes, but the mere fact that a vehicle is being used to transport a person to a hospital does not mean that it is being used for ambulance purposes or, if it was, that those purposes would have been hindered. There are, if you like, two hurdles to be jumped:
1. Was the vehicle being used for ambulance purposes?
2. Would those purposes have been hindered by sticking to the speed limit?
Since the car which started all this discussion off was not driven or crewed by ambulance personnel or operating under the direction of an ambulance service in any way, trying to suggest a defence under S.87 or any other statute would be highly unlikely to succeed.
The defence which might be available is the Common Law one of "necessity" (these days more often thought of as "duress of circumstances") - for which the defendant would have to show that exceeding the speed limit was the lesser of two evils in the circumstances. On the information given I'm not at all sure that this would be successful and having once entered a guilty plea reopening the case may well be problematical - this might be more of a "fisherman" area!
Quote:
The op could win a greater value than £100 and 3 points by creating case law at crown court level if he wins.
Incidentally, a Crown Court case does not set a binding precedent - only decisions of the High Court / Divisional Courts (Queens Bench etc.) and above are binding on equivalent and lower courts. Although a lower court decision may be used persuasively, Crown, County and Magistrates' Courts decisions do not bind themselves, let alone any other court.
PS - Yes, I do happen to have a law degree, albeit rather rusty!