Police Interceptors

[Annie Bynnol]

   The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill received Royal Assent(on 28 April 2022), introduced a new offence of Causing serious injury by careless driving. The maximum penalty is two years’ imprisonment.  Examples of dangerous driving are speeding, racing, or driving aggressively.

 

[crookesey]

13 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said:

   The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill received Royal Assent(on 28 April 2022), introduced a new offence of Causing serious injury by careless driving. The maximum penalty is two years’ imprisonment.  Examples of dangerous driving are speeding, racing, or driving aggressively.

 

Will this bill work without evidence of dangerous driving, speeding, racing, or driving aggressively? I ask because other than for speed monitor and recorded evidence who/what is going to prove this offence. The courts, as usual, are pandering to public opinion without having a clue as to how to make this work.

[Annie Bynnol]

19 minutes ago, crookesey said:

Will this bill work without evidence of dangerous driving, speeding, racing, or driving aggressively? I ask because other than for speed monitor and recorded evidence who/what is going to prove this offence. The courts, as usual, are pandering to public opinion without having a clue as to how to make this work.

 It is Parliament and not the Courts who legislate.

 This offence filled a gap between in the legislation which allowed drivers to avoid appropriate punishment for 'bad' driving that caused serious injury. Driving at nearly 50% over the limit is 'bad' driving and indefensible.

 The standard of evidence presented to the Court is no different to that required to prove other similar offences, scene of the crime forensics, speed cameras, CCTV, credible witnesses, in car cameras etc. The evidence must only need to establish that events happened in order to prove guilt. Other factors and aggravating or mitigating circumstances will be considered at sentencing.

[crookesey]

1 hour ago, Annie Bynnol said:

 It is Parliament and not the Courts who legislate.

 This offence filled a gap between in the legislation which allowed drivers to avoid appropriate punishment for 'bad' driving that caused serious injury. Driving at nearly 50% over the limit is 'bad' driving and indefensible.

 The standard of evidence presented to the Court is no different to that required to prove other similar offences, scene of the crime forensics, speed cameras, CCTV, credible witnesses, in car cameras etc. The evidence must only need to establish that events happened in order to prove guilt. Other factors and aggravating or mitigating circumstances will be considered at sentencing.

If the Courts don’t legislate this (offence) who does? I see that my 43mph in a 30mph zone is now indefensible, do you suggest that I surrender myself to Parliament for sentencing?

 

[Padders]

2 minutes ago, crookesey said:

If the Courts don’t legislate this (offence) who does? I see that my 43mph in a 30mph zone is now indefensible, do you suggest that I surrender myself to Parliament for sentencing?

 

Boy Racer......

[crookesey]

3 minutes ago, Padders said:

Boy Racer......

Don’t encourage her for Christ’s sake. 😉

[Annie Bynnol]

31 minutes ago, crookesey said:

If the Courts don’t legislate this (offence) who does? I see that my 43mph in a 30mph zone is now indefensible, do you suggest that I surrender myself to Parliament for sentencing?

 

 Silly. 

 As I have already said  "It is Parliament and not the Courts who legislate" on such matters ie Acts of Parliament and the Statute Book. In English Law some Courts will make rulings in their court judgements that set precedents for how the law is interpreted. There are other traffic bye-laws set locally by Councils etc.

  In this situation 'Indefensible' is not a moral judgement it is the proven fact that your speed exceeded the legal limit by nearly 50%. The court would listen to you submissions before sentencing. Parliament sets 'sentencing guidelines' which the Judge should follow and so most traffic offences are of the 'fixed penalty' type(lessons/fine/points etc.). If you had injured or damaged property then some of the criminal offences kick in.

  

 

[crookesey]

Watch out when driving in the Peak Park, their Highways Dept  have placed some 20 mph signs in places that make them almost impossible to notice whilst driving.

[Resident]

On 09/07/2023 at 13:56, *Wallace* said:

The thing that gets me on these programs is we watch them getting chased they crash into some poor sods car get out run away cops chase and catch them as said above no license insurance then 2 minutes later the narrator says no further action was taken as there wasn’t enough evidence ? Eh ? We’ve just watched it ?

I remember the series that they were in South Yorkshire. 

They pulled a car in Aston, 4 on board. All 4 had enough weed on their persons to apply possession with intent to supply & they found weapons and even more weed in the boot. 

All bang to rights. 

Narrator at the end: "The four youths caught with enough drugs to supply Amsterdam were all released without charge due to lack of evidence"..

[El Cid]

53 minutes ago, Resident said:

I remember the series that they were in South Yorkshire. 

They pulled a car in Aston, 4 on board. All 4 had enough weed on their persons to apply possession with intent to supply & they found weapons and even more weed in the boot. 

All bang to rights. 

Narrator at the end: "The four youths caught with enough drugs to supply Amsterdam were all released without charge due to lack of evidence"..

How do the prove who owned the drugs? Hopefully the driver got prosecuted for something