BBC: Police target driving 'loopholes'

[SammyTheSnake]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5340846.stm
Police target driving 'loopholes'
- Reckless drivers who use legal loopholes to avoid conviction are being targeted in a new police initiative.

I'm particularly furrowing my brow at this bit: "And police say they will be keeping a close eye on drivers who they think have been wrongly acquitted of crimes." which does somewhat seem to put under pressure the "innocent until proven guilty" thing and the independence of the courts...

Comments, anyone?

Cheers & God bless
Sam "SammyTheSnake" Penny

[martine]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5340846.stm
Police target driving 'loopholes'
- Reckless drivers who use legal loopholes to avoid conviction are being targeted in a new police initiative.

I'm particularly furrowing my brow at this bit: "And police say they will be keeping a close eye on drivers who they think have been wrongly acquitted of crimes." which does somewhat seem to put under pressure the "innocent until proven guilty" thing and the independence of the courts...

Comments, anyone?

Cheers & God bless
Sam "SammyTheSnake" Penny

As long as it's not harassment I see no problem in 'keeping a careful eye' on those that have escaped conviction because of a loophole rather than being innocent. I'm sure our police contributors will back me up but it must be very frustrating when they know someone is guilty but they go free on a technicality. 'Keeping an eye' on them will probably mean when they do something stupid/illegal again the police are ready to pounce!

My understanding is much crime is commited by the same individuals over and over again - so it's only sensible for the police to focus their attention on likely offenders.

[ipsg.glf]

Personally, I think that if people are not being covicted because of flawed processes then I think that the flawed process should be reviewed where necessary.

I do worry about the notion that someone got off with something that they did do. If they did do it then surely they wouldn't have got off with it.

If a speeding conviction fails because a TrafPol failed to calibrate the device, then that is a training issue for the officer involved.

[Nigel]

I'm sort of with you Martin, but I also agree with sammy.

My respect for the Police has been diminishing for some time now, as a general group rather than individual officers, the older I get, the more I see them abuse rules themselves whilst seemingly getting harder and harder on the ordinary motorist.....the less I tend to believe what they say.

[martine]

I'm sort of with you Martin, but I also agree with sammy.

It must be painful...siting on the fence that is... I bet you're a liberal democrat...sorry that was below the belt (and only joking of course).

[Nigel]

It would need to be a strong fence !

Liberal....me......you've got the wife rolling around the floor, I'm generally considered slightly to the right of Genghis Khan.

Its hard to type what I mean...without offending the Police lads who give up their time freely to help us out.

[martine]

Liberal....me......you've got the wife rolling around the floor, I'm generally considered slightly to the right of Genghis Khan.

I would never have guessed...

Its hard to type what I mean...without offending the Police lads who give up their time freely to help us out.

Yes indeed but I'm sure it wouldn't be personal - your views are not untypical - my brother would say much the same. The police chaps that post here seem pretty genuine and professional to me (with one exception - that's got you thinking but if you don't know who I'm talking about, I'm not going to let on)

[MGF]

I am not sure what people mean when they say someone is 'guilty' but they get off through a loophole in the law or a technicality.

I think this is a contradiction in terms. If they haven't met the definition then they cannot be guilty of the crime.

I suppose what is meant is that the substance of the crime has been committed. The driving was dangerous, the person was over the limit.

If this is sufficient for guilt why have technicalities or loopholes in the first place?

These 'technicalities' are not necessarily the result of bad drafting. They are usually consciously made part of the law.

The law isn't hidden away, it is there for everyone to see. The police, prosecutors and defence lawyers.

Either Parliament changes the rules to make it easier to convict or the Police get better advised on what they need to do to get a conviction and ensure this is filtered through to those that need to know.

Remember, 'loopholes' and 'technicalities' work both ways.

From the article,

"The association hopes motorists will avoid contesting their speeding charge because if they lose, their costs will include up to £4,000 for the cost of the team"

So the Police hope to 'spend people out of Court'.

You may criticise the Police for doing this but they are most likely playing within the rules. Again it is up to Parliament to change the rules if they consider this 'unfairness' to be wrong.

Another example of a 'technicality' working against someone is the recent discussion on dangerous driving and the requirement of standards to be judegd by the 'competant & careful' driver not the highly trained police officer.

The alternative to 'technicalities' and 'loopholes' is uncertain law and Courts making subjective value statements of right and wrong.

This, in my view can lead to much worse consequences.

[waremark]

There is a lot we all agree on here - police and CPS training and procedure should be optimised to ensure conviction of the guilty where sufficient evidence of crime is available.

The controversial bit is Mr Hughes comments about what the police may do when they think a guilty party has been acquitted. His comments are either amibiguous or ambiguously reported, but frankly I wish the police had the resources to do anything useful in this situation!

The missing part of the story is the lack of police resources to discourage, identify and prosecute traffic crime with the reduction in number of traffic police in recent years.

[Roadcraft]

My respect for the Police has been diminishing for some time now, as a general group rather than individual officers, the older I get, the more I see them abuse rules themselves whilst seemingly getting harder and harder on the ordinary motorist.....the less I tend to believe what they say.

As much as I love you Nigel...

That's a load of horsepoo above....

The current crop of police officers that come through are like little mice and angels and the ones that are already in (no matter what service)...are turning into mice.....

Lots wont say boo to a goose. They'll grass each other up for inappropriate comments or behaviour....

The lists goes on.

My wife joined the police in 1984, some 10 years or so before I did...and tells me of an entirely different police force then...

To be honest with you Nigel.....the police 'service' you have now...has never been so prim and proper.....(I personally think...to the detriment of the public)

[James]

Its not a police force, its a police service.

We are no longer crime fighters, we are politicians.

Ever tried to put up a shelf with a bar of soap and a toothbrush?

[SLine]

I saw an advert in the paper over the weekend for this book:

http://www.drivershandbook.co.uk/

Seems a little disturbing when the book includes:

# Why you should never produce your licence when stopped at the roadside - even if you have it with you.
# What you must never say when stopped. Break this rule and all is lost.
# Eight dirty tricks Dutch drivers use to stay one step ahead of the police and their cameras. Strictly illegal and for information only!
# The 'inside track' on radar detectors, reflective number plates and other commonly used avoidance devices.

[crr003]

I saw an advert in the paper over the weekend....

# Why you should never produce your licence when stopped at the roadside - even if you have it with you.

I've heard that too. I wonder why? Still most people don't carry the paper part (those who have moved onto the two part licence!), so I think you still get a "Producer"/HORT/1
But I won't be buying the book to find out!

[Søren]

I saw an advert in the paper over the weekend....

# Why you should never produce your licence when stopped at the roadside - even if you have it with you.

I've heard that too. I wonder why? Still most people don't carry the paper part (those who have moved onto the two part licence!), so I think you still get a "Producer"/HORT/1
But I won't be buying the book to find out!

It identifies you. Most officers should now be alert to the fact that many solicitors will encourage their client not to appear at court so that they can question the identification of their client. If there is insufficient identification made at the roadside the solicitor could argue that his client has no case to answer as it cannot be proved that he was the driver.

This is an avenue that many officers have on occasion become a bit blase with, especially when the driver is the pnc keeper and there is no specific reason (other than dotting Is and crossing Ts) to dispute the identity of the driver.

It is a risky method of defence, which won't endear the defendant to the magistrates if they are satisfied that the officer has obtained enough ID.

I'm sure I've got one such defence going to court soon.

I'll let you know how I get on.

[MGF]

Most officers should now be alert to the fact that many solicitors will encourage their client not to appear at court so that they can question the identification of their client. If there is insufficient identification made at the roadside the solicitor could argue that his client has no case to answer as it cannot be proved that he was the driver.

This is an avenue that many officers have on occasion become a bit blase with, especially when the driver is the pnc keeper and there is no specific reason (other than dotting Is and crossing Ts) to dispute the identity of the driver.

What Soren means, if I may, is that where a client indicates to his legal representative that he was not the driver at the time of the alleged offence or can not remember whether or not he was the driver then said legal representative is obliged to carry out his lawful and professional duty which is to question the evidence offered in support of the allegation.

Equally the prosecutor will perform his lawful and professional duty of trying to convince the Court that the defendant is indeed guilty of the alleged offence.

It is not the role of the legal representative of the defendant to make up for the shortcomings of the police in their performance of their lawful and professional duty of gathering evidence to substantiate the charge. (Hence possibly advising a client not attend Court in the same way as a defendant may be advised not to give evidence).

The problem with motoring offences is that most people believe if you are prosecuted you have no defence and in any event there is no legal aid in most cases and if you lose you end up having to pay costs that often outweigh the penalty.

Many police officers also believe this and so they become slack in the way they perform their duty.

So when people put up a defence they are noted for getting off on a 'technicality'.

The downside of not attending Court, as Soren says, is it doesn't put you in a good light with the Mags. (Your solicitor would also have a duty to inform you of the consequences of things not going as planned).

I would suggest that many of these 'technicality' defences are defendant led rather than solicitor led.