A Sussex Policeman who was driving a patrol car that killed a woman when it crossed a red light was found not guilty of Dangerous Driving. He was found guilty on the lesser charge of Careless Driving and fined
If PC Milton was going to an emergency and had Blues and two's on would it have been Dangerous Driving !!
I see Fire Engines and Ambulances on a daily basis speeding down our main road. Are they Dangerous or are they Trained Expert Drivers ?? Do lights and sirens make you a better driver?? No they just tell other people to get out of the way just in case.
This seems to be turning into an anti-police issue, if you want to drive at 150 mph join the police force, or go to live in Germany.
Val & Frank who has 3X3 penalty points all speeding on motorways, not built up areas.
I see Fire Engines and Ambulances on a daily basis speeding down our main road. Are they Dangerous or are they Trained Expert Drivers ?? Do lights and sirens make you a better driver?? No they just tell other people to get out of the way just in case.
This seems to be turning into an anti-police issue, if you want to drive at 150 mph join the police force, or go to live in Germany.
Val & Frank who has 3X3 penalty points all speeding on motorways, not built up areas.
Frank, I do not know if it would have made any difference in PC Miltons case if he had lights and sirens on but there is no requirement for a Policeman to have either of these devices on to claim his exemption from speed limits. In some instances it may be preferable for the Police to arrrive with no warning.
What has happened as a result of this and other high profile cases is that the right to claim exemption has been severly curtailed. West Mercia Police have introduced a limit of the speed limit + 20mph unless higher speeds are authorised by the Control.
It is worth pointing out that PC Milton was attached to the Fire Arms department as a pursuit driver. I expect the people of Hungerford were greatful that the Police arrived in a timely manner when Michael Ryan was causing death and destruction.
The only reason most people are up in arms over this escapade is because they feel, rightly or wrongly, that the Police are operating double standards. I would suggest that the vast majority of drivers who are being reported by the Police, and their friends in the Camera Partnerships, for speeding believe in all honestly that they were driving safely.
What has happened as a result of this and other high profile cases is that the right to claim exemption has been severly curtailed. West Mercia Police have introduced a limit of the speed limit + 20mph unless higher speeds are authorised by the Control.
It is worth pointing out that PC Milton was attached to the Fire Arms department as a pursuit driver. I expect the people of Hungerford were greatful that the Police arrived in a timely manner when Michael Ryan was causing death and destruction.
The only reason most people are up in arms over this escapade is because they feel, rightly or wrongly, that the Police are operating double standards. I would suggest that the vast majority of drivers who are being reported by the Police, and their friends in the Camera Partnerships, for speeding believe in all honestly that they were driving safely.
I think I understand what your saying, the last time I got booked was for doing 86mph on the M74, clear dry day light traffic etc.The police car doing 95 to catch me was safe I wasn't !!!!. Speed is nearly emotive as 4x4s. In my opinion the limits are wrong and are becoming worse. I used to think the National Limit in a built up area was 30 mph, now in Aberdeen it has been reduced to 20 mph without a lot of publicity. And the Police say they will strictly enforce. I wonder if they can measure your speed between two points on the CCTV that are part of the crime prevention measures in our city centers ??
I still think Milton was Careless rather than Dangerous just like me last time I was caught !!!!
Val & Frank
I still think Milton was Careless rather than Dangerous just like me last time I was caught !!!!
Val & Frank
It's another no win situation here.
Do the police need to train their officers for reasons of emergency or the pursuit of criminal offences? Yes, I'm afraid they do.
Do they need to practice on public roads?
Well yes, to be realistic, that's where they need to be.
Do I like the idea?
Most definitely not. It's just something I wouldn't be expecting or be able to allow for, should a car pass me at that sort of speed.
The answer?
Carefully chosen roads that have Message signs (MS2, MS3 etc) or gantry signals that can warn me of fast approaching cars in the area.
Not a definitive answer, but a start.
Like I said, it's a no win situation, brought about by real criminals. Perhaps that's the direction we should be looking in!
Anyway, did you hear the one about the cannibals that caught a bricklayer and a carpenter? They over boiled the bricky so ended up going for a chippy.
Guess not....
Do the police need to train their officers for reasons of emergency or the pursuit of criminal offences? Yes, I'm afraid they do.
Do they need to practice on public roads?
Well yes, to be realistic, that's where they need to be.
Do I like the idea?
Most definitely not. It's just something I wouldn't be expecting or be able to allow for, should a car pass me at that sort of speed.
The answer?
Carefully chosen roads that have Message signs (MS2, MS3 etc) or gantry signals that can warn me of fast approaching cars in the area.
Not a definitive answer, but a start.
Like I said, it's a no win situation, brought about by real criminals. Perhaps that's the direction we should be looking in!
Anyway, did you hear the one about the cannibals that caught a bricklayer and a carpenter? They over boiled the bricky so ended up going for a chippy.
Guess not....
Interesting thread and whilst there are many different views on the rights or wrongs of this police officer's driving, there is one thing that nobody can criticize the police for, in this instance, and that is the fact that they were not afraid to air their dirty washing in public. There was no cover-up or attempted cover-up. His gaffers threw the book at him, and let's not forget that it was the courts and not the boys in blue who had their final say on the matter.
I would imagine that the West Mercia force consulted with the Crown Prosecution Service who would have applied 2 questions to the case:
1. Is it in the public interest to bring the case to court?
2. Is there a realistic chance of winning the case?
At the present time, the police have to seek advice on charging from CPS prosecutors in about 90% of all cases. There are certain offences that the police can charge without seeking CPS advice e.g. minor public order.
Just a bit of background information that people may not know when reading about cases being brought to court.
1. Is it in the public interest to bring the case to court?
2. Is there a realistic chance of winning the case?
At the present time, the police have to seek advice on charging from CPS prosecutors in about 90% of all cases. There are certain offences that the police can charge without seeking CPS advice e.g. minor public order.
Just a bit of background information that people may not know when reading about cases being brought to court.
just last sat we were travelling from dover to poole after a month in spain, when just off the m27 onto the a31 in very heavy rain, two police cars passed us WELL in excess of 100mph (we were doing about 55), there was such a small gap between them that you could have said that it was only one vehicle. several cars in front had to take severe evasive action to get out of their way. addmittidly, about two miles further on, on the opposite side of the road a discovery and boat had jack-knifed, however police were already on the scene when we passed and the two 'speed-boys' passed us a couple of minutes later going the other way.
I can see that ambulances need to speed.
i can see the fire brigade need to speed.
I am unable to see why a bunch of (on the whole) jumped up herberts, need to speed so readily, risking countless lives in the process.
these are my thoughts only and are not intended to offend anyone, and i'm sorry if they do....especially my brother-in-law!
having said that, i had need of my local bobby a while back and he was great; so maybe i could be wrong.
I can see that ambulances need to speed.
i can see the fire brigade need to speed.
I am unable to see why a bunch of (on the whole) jumped up herberts, need to speed so readily, risking countless lives in the process.
these are my thoughts only and are not intended to offend anyone, and i'm sorry if they do....especially my brother-in-law!
having said that, i had need of my local bobby a while back and he was great; so maybe i could be wrong.
Having posted the top of this thread and read the numerous replies, I still stand by my own belief that this officer did not act responsibly, and has been justly convicted.
Clive V
Whilst the detail of the headline I spotted may have been technically in error, the fact is that the officer has been convicted of a driving related offence.
Yes both you and I would complain if the response time of an officer was impaired by lack of training and practice, but your comment seems to suggest that officers who cannot use the roads to practice have no alternative, wrong - High speed driving training does not have to be carried out on public roads. The handling and performance of the car can be more accurately ascertained on proving ground tracks. There are many tracks that use standard road construction methods and as such can or could be used to recreate any surface condition required, without any danger or inconvenience to the general public.
There should be no reason for response times to be radically affected simply because drivers are trained off road.
If it is essential that police drivers must be placed in real situations by using public roads, the why is skid control training carried out on closed tracks?
Clive V
Whilst the detail of the headline I spotted may have been technically in error, the fact is that the officer has been convicted of a driving related offence.
Yes both you and I would complain if the response time of an officer was impaired by lack of training and practice, but your comment seems to suggest that officers who cannot use the roads to practice have no alternative, wrong - High speed driving training does not have to be carried out on public roads. The handling and performance of the car can be more accurately ascertained on proving ground tracks. There are many tracks that use standard road construction methods and as such can or could be used to recreate any surface condition required, without any danger or inconvenience to the general public.
There should be no reason for response times to be radically affected simply because drivers are trained off road.
If it is essential that police drivers must be placed in real situations by using public roads, the why is skid control training carried out on closed tracks?
At the end of the day it all boils down to the fact that West Mercia Police did not have a policy for testing high performance police cars/drivers. Don't get bogged down with PC Milton,it was a police forces failing that led to him thnking he could get away with it (rightly or wrongly)
Val & Frank
Val & Frank
Hi John
Your point is valid only if the "off-road" training is realistic.
Having done skid pan training at Thruxton - the surface is a gooey mess of oil and detergent. I certainly would not condone anyone practicing skids on public roads. Sadly the Go Faster "Halfords" freaks do practice "do-nuts" in the forest and I do not condone that either.
As for marksman reference, they do not have to practice in the real world because they can easily practice in special areas.
As for drivers are you seriously saying that our police forces should take monetary resources to build off road copies of real towns real motorways etc so that a Class 1 driver can practise in some artificial copy of reality?
Or perhaps the money should be spend on a simulator like NASA - I suppose it is where you feel happy having your money spent. Apart from the fact that for NASA - with only two Space Shuttles left, the comparison between Astronaut training and Police Class 1 Drivers training hold absolutely no validity whatsoever! - Heck - even Airline Pilot training is costed at many thousands of
Your point is valid only if the "off-road" training is realistic.
Having done skid pan training at Thruxton - the surface is a gooey mess of oil and detergent. I certainly would not condone anyone practicing skids on public roads. Sadly the Go Faster "Halfords" freaks do practice "do-nuts" in the forest and I do not condone that either.
As for marksman reference, they do not have to practice in the real world because they can easily practice in special areas.
As for drivers are you seriously saying that our police forces should take monetary resources to build off road copies of real towns real motorways etc so that a Class 1 driver can practise in some artificial copy of reality?
Or perhaps the money should be spend on a simulator like NASA - I suppose it is where you feel happy having your money spent. Apart from the fact that for NASA - with only two Space Shuttles left, the comparison between Astronaut training and Police Class 1 Drivers training hold absolutely no validity whatsoever! - Heck - even Airline Pilot training is costed at many thousands of
frank, you say that PC Milton thought he "could get away with it".
I don't think that is the case. It was his decision alone to record the episode and on completion rewind the tape and leave it in the car. This was the only evidence against him and it appears to me he didn't think he was getting away with anything. He was carrying out his duties in line with procedures in place at the time believing that his exemption as a Police driver enabled him to drive at those speeds.
Exceeding the speed limit, and exemptions from having to obey other traffic related laws, is perhaps one of the few instances where the Police can legally break the law whilst carrying out their duties. Perhaps this is what has got up the public's nose when the Police are draconian in their enforcement, e.g. the woman convicted of careless driving whilst eating an apple, but appear to break the law themselves.
Having seen the sly and callous ways that Dorset Police and the Camera Partnership carry out speed checks I personally have no sympathy with PC Milton, live by the sword you die by it.
I don't think that is the case. It was his decision alone to record the episode and on completion rewind the tape and leave it in the car. This was the only evidence against him and it appears to me he didn't think he was getting away with anything. He was carrying out his duties in line with procedures in place at the time believing that his exemption as a Police driver enabled him to drive at those speeds.
Exceeding the speed limit, and exemptions from having to obey other traffic related laws, is perhaps one of the few instances where the Police can legally break the law whilst carrying out their duties. Perhaps this is what has got up the public's nose when the Police are draconian in their enforcement, e.g. the woman convicted of careless driving whilst eating an apple, but appear to break the law themselves.
Having seen the sly and callous ways that Dorset Police and the Camera Partnership carry out speed checks I personally have no sympathy with PC Milton, live by the sword you die by it.
Ray - living where I do (Hants/Wilt/Dorset border) I entirely agree with you sentiments.
However, to take this one individual who as you say openly admitted what he did and left the evidence for all to see because under the rules THAT APPLIED TO HIM AT THAT POINT IN TIME - he was following these rules, and destroy his life because we are annoyed with the lower echelons of OUR police force because of their "bean counter" driven speed camera political correctness seems rather vindictive to me.
However, to take this one individual who as you say openly admitted what he did and left the evidence for all to see because under the rules THAT APPLIED TO HIM AT THAT POINT IN TIME - he was following these rules, and destroy his life because we are annoyed with the lower echelons of OUR police force because of their "bean counter" driven speed camera political correctness seems rather vindictive to me.
Clive, yes I suppose it is but I'm afraid that is how I feel these days - that is what the whole politicalisation of speed enforcement has done to me. However it was not my decision to prosecute him that was a Police / CPS matter. In all my postings on the subject I have said that I believe he was carrying out his duties in accordance with procedures in place at the time. I also believe, rightly or wrongly, that he was arrogant and believed the hype about being a creme de la creme of drivers and who would have no reservations whatsover in reporting ordinary motorists for minor transgressions of speed limits in line with current Police policy. { I have personal knowledge of a driver in Dorset being offered the choice of a spped management course or prosecution for driving at 34mph in a 30 limit. That is below the ACPO guidline of 10% + 2mph and is what the new limits in the road safety bill are all about).
Point taken - and as I say - I agree with virtually all that you say apart from what? --- maybe 5%?
Thank goodness you and I can debate the odds and come to a conclusion then agree to difer on what are our personal opinions.
Thank goodness you and I can debate the odds and come to a conclusion then agree to difer on what are our personal opinions.
Clive
As ever you are the master of taking a point and twisting it out of perspective to generate exaggerated bipolar comments.
Police marksmen have special areas because it is highly dangerous to discharge a firearm, even one in the hands of an trained officer is potentially very dangerous. Exactly the same can be said of fast response drivers, and it is perfectly possible for such high speed driver training to familiarise the driver with a particular type of car in off road situations, in fact it is actually better to do it under controlled conditions as you can allow the driver to really extend to all areas of performance and handling. These understandings of the ability of the vehicle can be used to better effect when the need arises.
It is not necessary for the police to take hard won resources to 'build' test tracks. These tracks already exist. There may be cost to use such facilities but then safety always costs less as a preventative measure than as rearguard action - call it insurance.
I did not mention a simulator, you did, but as you have, they are used extensively to train and test drivers (current theory test), Pilots of all sorts, submariners, astornaughts, and the list goes on. These are all high-risk activities, and it is clearly felt that simulators form an important part of a training scheme, but rarely are they the only part.
We have over crowded roads, which are in poor repair, these constitute enough of a hazard to the normal driver and pedestrians without having police divers adding to the possible dangers. The public do not expect to be confronted with any car doing such high speeds especially in built up areas.
Norfolk Mike, appears to have made the same basic erroneous assumption that a high speed driver cannot be trained off road. I believe they can and probably to a better degree than simply relying on the public roads. But we must not forget that there is a lot more to being a Class 1 Police driver than just speed. Where the training activities are compatible with the normal laws of the road then there is no problem with them occuring in the public arena.
There is a big probelm with 'getting real', basically why is your 'real' any more valid than mine? My reality is based on many years of experience.
As ever you are the master of taking a point and twisting it out of perspective to generate exaggerated bipolar comments.
Police marksmen have special areas because it is highly dangerous to discharge a firearm, even one in the hands of an trained officer is potentially very dangerous. Exactly the same can be said of fast response drivers, and it is perfectly possible for such high speed driver training to familiarise the driver with a particular type of car in off road situations, in fact it is actually better to do it under controlled conditions as you can allow the driver to really extend to all areas of performance and handling. These understandings of the ability of the vehicle can be used to better effect when the need arises.
It is not necessary for the police to take hard won resources to 'build' test tracks. These tracks already exist. There may be cost to use such facilities but then safety always costs less as a preventative measure than as rearguard action - call it insurance.
I did not mention a simulator, you did, but as you have, they are used extensively to train and test drivers (current theory test), Pilots of all sorts, submariners, astornaughts, and the list goes on. These are all high-risk activities, and it is clearly felt that simulators form an important part of a training scheme, but rarely are they the only part.
We have over crowded roads, which are in poor repair, these constitute enough of a hazard to the normal driver and pedestrians without having police divers adding to the possible dangers. The public do not expect to be confronted with any car doing such high speeds especially in built up areas.
Norfolk Mike, appears to have made the same basic erroneous assumption that a high speed driver cannot be trained off road. I believe they can and probably to a better degree than simply relying on the public roads. But we must not forget that there is a lot more to being a Class 1 Police driver than just speed. Where the training activities are compatible with the normal laws of the road then there is no problem with them occuring in the public arena.
There is a big probelm with 'getting real', basically why is your 'real' any more valid than mine? My reality is based on many years of experience.
Sorry John but methinks you protest to much. I stand by my comments.
As for "experience" - after 40 years in business I have learnt for a fact that when someone is reduced to telling people how "experienced" they are it invariably means that the reality of what they consider to be - say - 25 years experience is in fact about one years experience that is 25 years old.
As for "experience" - after 40 years in business I have learnt for a fact that when someone is reduced to telling people how "experienced" they are it invariably means that the reality of what they consider to be - say - 25 years experience is in fact about one years experience that is 25 years old.
I believe you are right John. There is a need while training to be among traffic in everyday situations, it's the only way you begin to understand the behaviour of other road users, and learn to expect the unexpected. It is not necessary to travel at over twice the speed limit to do this. Proving grounds and circuits are more than adequate for exploring any vehicle's handling characterisics and also make it possible to analyze fully the vehicle's (and driver's) performance. I don't believe there is ever a reason to practice at 70-80mph in a 30mph limit as I see regularly in the village in which my mother resides. By the way, I trained as a driver for VIP protection, but never on public roads.
Personally I believe you are wrong John L. I don't like the idea of a police car closing in on me, at the speeds suggested, but you cannot train on closed roads and tracks for this type of driving. Granted it is a good starting point, to learn car control and procedures and initially will be of great benefit.
However, you say yourself the public roads are both crowded and potholed. You can add to that, adverse cambers, danger of aqua planning, slow moving vehicles and any number of hazards present on public roads.
Police officers can train for years on private roads but it won't equip them for the mess that is our public infrastructure.
In do believe they can make it safer though, and make the best out of a bad necessity.
As for being experienced in these maters and being able to comment on them, I think "common sense" is enough. Unless you are in that car, doing that job, it is difficult to assess the training regime.
However, you say yourself the public roads are both crowded and potholed. You can add to that, adverse cambers, danger of aqua planning, slow moving vehicles and any number of hazards present on public roads.
Police officers can train for years on private roads but it won't equip them for the mess that is our public infrastructure.
In do believe they can make it safer though, and make the best out of a bad necessity.
As for being experienced in these maters and being able to comment on them, I think "common sense" is enough. Unless you are in that car, doing that job, it is difficult to assess the training regime.
As a former police driver we were taught to travel at high speeds well in excess of 100mph. Most of you do not have an advanced driving licence or have even been on an advanced driving course and possibly have never been in a position where you have to speed but drive with care at the same time.
As a policeman, it is generally very advisable to test drive a new car, i.e different model or type of car before attempting any sort of pursuit. This is in the interests of public safety. I would agree with most of the posts if the person in question tried this at a busy time.
Rememeber if your family or yourself are being attacked speed is of the essence and you would appreciate the swift arrival of a policeman. I am not condoning the speed at which he was travelling, but I do understand the reason and think that the magistrate gave a fair ruling.
As a policeman, it is generally very advisable to test drive a new car, i.e different model or type of car before attempting any sort of pursuit. This is in the interests of public safety. I would agree with most of the posts if the person in question tried this at a busy time.
Rememeber if your family or yourself are being attacked speed is of the essence and you would appreciate the swift arrival of a policeman. I am not condoning the speed at which he was travelling, but I do understand the reason and think that the magistrate gave a fair ruling.
Thank you Craig for confirming my view.
LoL
The basic tenant of the officers defence as reported was that he was familiarising himself with the vehicles handling and performance, and honing his driving skills.
Based on that premise, and without any doubt in my mind the performance and handling can be best explored under controlled conditions, for example, finding the breakaway point at which the car begins to slide, the degree of over or under steer and many other aspects of handling at the limits. It would not be safe to attempt to explore any of these on the public roads, simply because if it goes wrong, then there is less room to provide corrective action or if it can't be controlled then the consequences could be dire.
Such learning activities should be carried out under controlled off road conditions. The training to manage driving situations - how to manage a skid, cadence breaking, acquiring maximum performance through the gears etc. There is no need for such familiarisation of extremes to be performed on public roads.
The other dangers that you correctly mention; such as camber, aquaplaning etc are so variable across our roads that you cannot reliably provide the full range of experiences to any driver. These conditions may also naturally limit what the driver can do to explore the vehicles performance envelope, so the driver may not be able to extract and fully understand the true capabilities of the vehicle.
It will always be up to the driver to decide how they will negotiate any particular situation when it arises, but knowing the full potential of a car will enable the driver to make a better-informed decision.
There is a need for Police driver training to be carried out on the Public roads, if possible the driver should familiarise them selves with roads in their patch, but that does not require excessive speed.
Clive, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander so, I take it that your one years experience is now 40 years old!
Nuff said, as with other debates, discussions, tirades & diatribes we have a difference of opinion.
So here endeth the lesson.
LoL
The basic tenant of the officers defence as reported was that he was familiarising himself with the vehicles handling and performance, and honing his driving skills.
Based on that premise, and without any doubt in my mind the performance and handling can be best explored under controlled conditions, for example, finding the breakaway point at which the car begins to slide, the degree of over or under steer and many other aspects of handling at the limits. It would not be safe to attempt to explore any of these on the public roads, simply because if it goes wrong, then there is less room to provide corrective action or if it can't be controlled then the consequences could be dire.
Such learning activities should be carried out under controlled off road conditions. The training to manage driving situations - how to manage a skid, cadence breaking, acquiring maximum performance through the gears etc. There is no need for such familiarisation of extremes to be performed on public roads.
The other dangers that you correctly mention; such as camber, aquaplaning etc are so variable across our roads that you cannot reliably provide the full range of experiences to any driver. These conditions may also naturally limit what the driver can do to explore the vehicles performance envelope, so the driver may not be able to extract and fully understand the true capabilities of the vehicle.
It will always be up to the driver to decide how they will negotiate any particular situation when it arises, but knowing the full potential of a car will enable the driver to make a better-informed decision.
There is a need for Police driver training to be carried out on the Public roads, if possible the driver should familiarise them selves with roads in their patch, but that does not require excessive speed.
Clive, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander so, I take it that your one years experience is now 40 years old!
Nuff said, as with other debates, discussions, tirades & diatribes we have a difference of opinion.
So here endeth the lesson.
Certainly my 40 odd years has taught me a lot John, and the most important thing is that other peoples views are important but that a variable percentage of individuals at any one given time can be dreadfully wrong.
What I feel is vindictive is you commenting after, by your own later admission, only reading the headline. You seem to wallow in the emotion rather than the logic.
We have a sign on our fridge that applied to my two sons:-
"Teenagers - Please leave home now, whilst you still know everything!" I feel the sentiment if not the specific, could apply to you.
I also feel that this police officer is being sacrificed on the alter of political correctness.
If you feel the need for support then I am pleased that Craig fulfils that role for you.
However, I feel that Ian's comments as an ex Police Driver are far more valid. Like I said earlier, the Police Federation are supporting an Appeal - which I think the guy will win, because:-
a) Class 1 Police Drivers ARE exempt from speed limits
b) Apparently, nothing else on the tape of his own driving showed he was driving badly - just fast!
So how if Class 1 Police drivers are exempt from speed limits can he be found guilty of Dangerous Driving?
There is only one way - for this individual to effectively have his Class 1 Status removed. But Removal cannot be retrospective as he was a serving Police Officer at the time? So surely the exemption applied at the time? Certainly any speeding charge was dropped at the first hearing.
Hence the Judges Comments at the second hearing and hence the verdict but no penalty.
Hence a far better than average chance of him winning his appeal.
What I feel is vindictive is you commenting after, by your own later admission, only reading the headline. You seem to wallow in the emotion rather than the logic.
We have a sign on our fridge that applied to my two sons:-
"Teenagers - Please leave home now, whilst you still know everything!" I feel the sentiment if not the specific, could apply to you.
I also feel that this police officer is being sacrificed on the alter of political correctness.
If you feel the need for support then I am pleased that Craig fulfils that role for you.
However, I feel that Ian's comments as an ex Police Driver are far more valid. Like I said earlier, the Police Federation are supporting an Appeal - which I think the guy will win, because:-
a) Class 1 Police Drivers ARE exempt from speed limits
b) Apparently, nothing else on the tape of his own driving showed he was driving badly - just fast!
So how if Class 1 Police drivers are exempt from speed limits can he be found guilty of Dangerous Driving?
There is only one way - for this individual to effectively have his Class 1 Status removed. But Removal cannot be retrospective as he was a serving Police Officer at the time? So surely the exemption applied at the time? Certainly any speeding charge was dropped at the first hearing.
Hence the Judges Comments at the second hearing and hence the verdict but no penalty.
Hence a far better than average chance of him winning his appeal.
If this appeal goes with a jury, I feel sure he will be off the political hook. Ordinary people don't like to be taken advantage of for political ends.
Val & Frank
re Sheridan v News of the World
Val & Frank
re Sheridan v News of the World
I think you are right Frank - The Judge made sure that the conviction was only because "his advance driving skills & Police Class 1 Driver qualification were irrelevant to the charge".
Then effectively let him off!
HOW CAN ANY SERVING POLICE OFFICER NOW DRIVE HIS POLICE CAR KNOWING THAT ALL THEIR TRAINING AND THE SPEED EXEMPTION COUNTS FOR NOUGHT IN THAT IT CAN BE RETROSPECTIVELY TAKEN AWAY FROM THEM?
Far from such actions "opening the floodgates to speeding appeals" as one poster tries to make out will happen! - it is far more likely that Police Officers will be cruising sedately to any emergency rather than driving to their full abilities.
Then effectively let him off!
HOW CAN ANY SERVING POLICE OFFICER NOW DRIVE HIS POLICE CAR KNOWING THAT ALL THEIR TRAINING AND THE SPEED EXEMPTION COUNTS FOR NOUGHT IN THAT IT CAN BE RETROSPECTIVELY TAKEN AWAY FROM THEM?
Far from such actions "opening the floodgates to speeding appeals" as one poster tries to make out will happen! - it is far more likely that Police Officers will be cruising sedately to any emergency rather than driving to their full abilities.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
-
Open to ideas - solar charging leisure battery and Jackery
- Started by freeman3030
- Replies: 17
-
-
Facebook
Twitter