At least they didn't park up and abandon their vehicles there. ;>)
Sorry, old post.
|
That article doesn't say much does it. If they were off duty, then they got what they deserved. If they were on duty, then they might have got what they deserved, or they might not, we don't know. Dreadful reporting, it doesn't tell you enough.
Seems a bit strange there were two of them, both supervisors.
Edited by Westpig on 21/01/2010 at 23:08
|
Both were in civvies on their way to work and in seperate cars.
CCTV saw another car reversing, patrol car was sent and stopped the original car and the two officers who were also reversing.
They stated they were reversing at slow speed and going to assist the uniformed officer to stop other drivers using dangerous manouvers to avoid the queue.
It's going to a higher court so we'll see in due course who the jury believe.
Edited by daveyjp on 22/01/2010 at 08:09
|
They stated they were reversing at slow speed and going to assist the uniformed >>officer to stop other drivers using dangerous manouvers to avoid the queue.
>>
As it's still to go to court for the Appeal, I suppose we ought to be circumspect re discussing too much on here... however I know what i think...and I don't suppose it's too much different from most other people on here.
Thank you for clarifying the facts.
|
I suppose we ought tobe circumspect re discussing too much on here
What? Careful about discussing what is published in the newspapers? Why?
|
What? Careful about discussing what is published in the newspapers? Why?
I meant beyond that....i.e. going into detail on a public forum about a subject that will be discussed at a court hearing for an Appeal.
Edited by Westpig on 22/01/2010 at 13:12
|
|
I have seen no detail here that hasn't come from a newspaper.
|
|
We'd moderate it if there was a problem. Leave it to us ;-0
|
|
|
I have seen no detail here that hasn't come from a newspaper.
Good. But there's been enough comment on numerous previous posts that have had to have the Mods come in to remind people not to speculate in depth on matters yet to go before a court. Some threads have had to be pulled because of it.
|
In law, sub judice, Latin for "under judgment," means that a particular case or matter is currently under trial or being considered by a judge or court. The term may be used synonymously with "the present case" or "the case at bar" by some lawyers.
In England and Wales, Ireland,[1] New Zealand, Australia, India, Pakistan, and Canada it is generally considered inappropriate to comment publicly on cases sub judice, which can be an offence in itself, leading to contempt of court proceedings. This is particularly true in criminal cases, where publicly discussing cases sub judice may constitute interference with due process.
In the United States, there are First Amendment concerns about stifling the right of free speech which prevent such tight restrictions on comments sub judice. However, State Rules of Professional Conduct governing attorneys often place restrictions on the out-of-court statements an attorney may make regarding an ongoing case. Furthermore, there are still protections for criminal defendants, and those convicted in an atmosphere of a circus have had their convictions overturned for a fairer trial.
|
Yes, but what's being discussed is in the *newspapers*. Several of them. This is the UK, BTW.
See PU's comment above.
|
Yes but what's being discussed is in the *newspapers*. Several of them. This is the UK BTW.
FT,
I was trying to encourage people not to use my comment to go FURTHER than what is currently acceptable i.e. in more depth than what has been currently stated (either on here or in the newspapers)....not stifle comment on what has already been printed. If I thought we shouldn't be talking about any of it...I wouldn't have posted anything at all.
|
|
|
|
|
Amazing, three motorists were caught that day, two Police sergeants and a prison officer.
|
|
And the person who booked them is now on the dole looking for another job..............
|
Why does a custody sergeant need to drive a riot van ? ? ?
Surely he should be stood behind the desk in the police station.
|
I do not see why plod should be treated any differently to any of the rest of us.
Tough.
And like the rest of us they willl mostly/always have an "extenuating circumstances" story.
Tough
Now what did Napolean say again?
|
|
|
...It's going to a higher court so we'll see in due course who the jury believe...
Not quite.
It's a magistrates' court conviction, so an appeal will be held before a judge and two magistrates at crown court.
Neither of the two magistrates will have sat on the original case.
I see the offences took place in June, 2008, so once again we have the unlovely spectre of determined hook wriggling by authority figures.
If this was me or you, the case would have been dealt with months ago.
|
I see the offences took place in June 2008 so once again we have the unlovely spectre of determined hook wriggling by authority figures. If this was me or you the case would have been dealt with months ago.
Odd that I regularly attend court for people I reported/ ticketed 12-18 months ago. The wheels of justice grind slowly. (But don't lest facts get in the way of a good rant!! :) )
Edited by midlifecrisis on 22/01/2010 at 09:11
|
mlc.
I regularly attend court and have done so for many years.
A universal feature of cases involving what one might term important or authority figures is they take longer than cases involving ordinary members of the public.
In this case it's police officers, but it could be a doctor, a solicitor, local councillor, etc.
That's not a rant, it's a statement of fact, based on experience.
The rant is that I don't like to see it, because I believe everyone should be equal before the law - I'm old-fashioned like that.
Edited by ifithelps on 22/01/2010 at 09:20
|
Well, we will just have to disagree. It makes not a jot of difference what you do for a living. Plead guilty and you'll be dealt with quickly (as many Police, doctors, solicitors, actors, do). Plead 'not guilty' and it can take an inordinate amount of time.
|
I wonder if it dragged on because the attending officer simply sent them on their way but someone in the control room picked up on it?
My Dad was in Merseyside fire brigade and that was enough to get him off all sorts of motoring indiscretions.....until he got caught speeding in Cheshire!
|
|
Surely he should be stood behind the desk in the police station.
Life is rarely as simple as that - most Officers multi-role outside their specialisms.
|
tinyurl.com/yl52wej
Edited by oilrag on 22/01/2010 at 13:33
|
All the stuff about sub judice is a load of tosh in this case.
It's a tactic often used by by a defendant's solicitor on the court steps: "We're going to appeal."
Said in the hope of somehow intimidating the media into not publishing the story.
The case of these two policemen is concluded, so it's open house from a reporting/discussion point of view.
If they appeal, proceedings are then active again, but the risk of prejudice even then is tiny.
Any appeal will be heard by two magistrates and a crown court judge.
It has long been held that a judge in particular is immune from being influenced by something he has read in the media.
|
|
Ifithelps - what's wrong with the unlovely spectre of hook wriggling by public authority figures? It's good enough for everyone else.
|
...what's wrong with the unlovely spectre of hook wriggling by public authority figures?...
woodster,
What I probably mean is the authority figures are better at hook wriggling than everyone else. :)
Most of the cases I have in mind have nothing to do with police officers, or motoring for that matter.
To give a motoring-related scenario, many of the clients of Nick Freeman would not have got the result they did if they did not have the resources to employ him.
Trying to get through loopholes is one unlovely spectre of hook wriggling, and it is something denied to most members of the public.
I have a grudging respect for a criminal who will look you in the eye and say: "Yeah, I did it."
This very rarely happens in cases involving rich businessmen, lawyers, doctors, sports stars, celebrities, etc.
It's all prevarication, prevarication, prevarication.
|
I'm not sure that most of Nick Freeman's clients are 'authority figures'. Most of his publicity comes from representing wealthy footballers or actors. I don't recall an authority figure using his services, but perhaps you can.
Nick Freeman has no special tactics- he does the same as countless other solicitors- dig into the detail. What he has managed to achieve is representing high profile people, and thus raise his profile. An analogy might be to compare a very well known actor who isn't actually that good or special,with a far lesser known but better actor. The well known gets the press.
In my experience, wriggling through loopholes is far from denied to the public at large. thousands of people are represented every day on legal aid. The 'loopholes' are the same, it's just the press and media interest that is lacking because no-one's interested in Johhny Nobody.
You have a grudging respect for a criminal who admits his crimes. Do you meet many or is this the hypothetical criminal who admits his crime? You're right that few high profile people admit their misdemeanours but then we're back to public profile and reputations to protect. Johhny Nobody rarely has this consideration. you might even argue that the B list celebrity raises his/her profile with a contested court case and the attendant media interest.
Having said all this, in my rather lengthy experience, lying is most certainly not the sole preserve of the wealthy or famous.
|
...You have a grudging respect for a criminal who admits his crimes. Do you meet many or is this the hypothetical criminal who admits his crime?...
Met a few, but observed far more.
For example, armed robber this week admitted banjoing two prison officers while in custody - extra three years, no messing.
The guy is a genuine nasty pasty, but he was not boastful of what he'd done, just prepared to accept it.
...Having said all this, in my rather lengthy experience, lying is most certainly not the sole preserve of the wealthy or famous....
Too right, the contention by these two police officers they reversed down the sliproad to help their colleagues was rejected by the magistrates who found them guilty.
And any police officers who think they get a hard time in court should look at the penalties in this case.
The two police officers who fought it all the way were fined a few hundred quid and banned for a year, as was another driver who pleaded guilty.
Were I him, I'd be asking where's the discount for a guilty plea?
|
|
|
|
|
|
