I recall being told that you can indeed break the speed limit legally. I can't remember the full terms, but it was to allow you to overtake safely and provided you dropped back down to the limit as soon as the pass was completed. Is this correct?
A policeman once told me that every crime on the book has a statutory defence of necessity.
Not sure this is true though ?cos of the guys in Victorian times who, while stuck in a boat at sea ate one of their number.
They had to be found guilty. (But were immediately pardoned).
Pugugly will tell us.
--
These are my own opinions, and not necessarily those of all Toads.
|
|
Ive just covered a hypothetical case on this during my law degree! I don't think *ALL* crimes carry that defence. Just like in Contract, you can't exclude liability for death or personal injury, and in murder you can't rely n the defence on necessity. I think. But it is early days so if I am corrected, I will be grateful.
|
|
|
"Not sure this is true though ?cos of the guys in Victorian times who, while stuck in a boat at sea ate one of their number."
I think that they'd been tried because they'd killed and eaten the cabin-boy, the smallest and weakest, but the customary etiquette was to draw straws. Not really motoring related, unless you're in a mini-bus stuck in a snow drift over Christmas.
Ho Ho Ho.
|
I think that they'd been tried because they'd killed and eaten the cabin-boy, the smallest and weakest, but the customary etiquette was to draw straws. Not really motoring related, unless you're in a mini-bus stuck in a snow drift over Christmas.
My lips are watering at the thought!
DVD will have been fattened up on a strick lifetime diet of coffee and donuts.
HJ will have mainly be eating burgers from the van at the auctions.
Tough call.
Need to give this some thought.
--
These are my own opinions, and not necessarily those of all Toads.
|
|
|
|
|
>>I recall being told that you can indeed break the speed limit
>>legally. I can't remember the full terms, but it was to allow
>>you to overtake safely and provided you dropped back down to
>>the limit as soon as the pass was completed.
I've always wanted to test out this "loop-hole" on a motorway. Seeing as the three lanes of a motorway are defined as...
Lane 1 - Normal driving
Lanes 2 & 3 - Overtaking
Does this mean that I can fly down lane 3 at 120mph as long as I get below 70 as soon as I re-enter lane 1? I'm not so sure that it'd be worth loosing my licence for, just to try and prove a possible loop-hole.
|
Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 Part V1 deals with speeding which is an absolute offence. There are no defences listed i.e. to complete an overtake etc.
Section 87 contains the exemption for vehicles used on an occasion for fire, ambulance and police purposes if observance of the speed limit would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle.
I seem to recall in the past there was an obscure Regulation which exempted Military Vehicles being used as such and proceeding to a theatre of war , but have lost the reference.
Of note perhaps where a person is threatened with death or serious physical injury unless they carry out a criminal act, they may have the defence of Duress, (i.e. Car-jacker armed with gun or knife in an attempt to make a get-a-way orders driver to speed)
DVD
|
|
What more can I say ?? other than add Pit Rescue Teams to the list.
|
|
Dave, it's not just 'necessity' but duress that you can't rely on for murder, i.e., if it's kill or be killed, you're supposed to choose 'be killed'.
|
|
|
|
Of note perhaps where a person is threatened with death or serious physical injury unless they carry out a criminal act, they may have the defence of Duress, (i.e. Car-jacker armed with gun or knife in an attempt to make a get-a-way orders driver to speed)
So, hypothetically, do the crown have to prove there was *no* duress or do you have to prove there was duress.
I'm tempted to claim I was being held at knifepoint every time an SP50 flutters through the door...
--
These are my own opinions, and not necessarily those of all Toads.
|
There are some absolute/automatic offences to which, in practice, there is no opportunity to enter a defense. However, this does grate against the innocent until PROVEN guilty. Its all theory, though, but keeps them happy in the jurisprudence classes. With the "overtaking at 70+" thing, the law says that you are never justified in over-taking at 71mph. You shoudln't need to overtake someone who is doing 28 in a 30. If their doing 17, then you can overtake them at 30. If you on a 60mph road, and someone is going 55, then you have no business overtaking them (so the law says) but if their going 40, then you can overtake them at 60. If you can't fit in the overtaking on the stretch of road you've chosen, going at 60, then you havent given yourself enough room to overtake and should not do so.
And if you kill someone under duress or of necessity, it would be murder with a defence. You may be charged with it and found guilty even, but you would walk free with a defence of justification. Guildty murder has to be done with intent or malice aforethought. Any other killing will be manslaughter. If you feel that your life is at risk, you'd be covered by self-defence: which has to be reasonable in the circumstances: meaning, if someone was pushing you around with their little pinky finger, it would not do to blow off their head with a shorn-off
However, it gets a bit tricky if you're under duress by someone to kill a third party. I doubt any jury would find someone guilty of murder if you had a gun to your head and, in turn, you were forced to hold a gun to another. But there are no hard and fast rules here.
Where are you reading, Dave?
Patricia
x
|
I seem to remember a year or two back some chap going into a gunshop and taking one of the shop assistants hostage at knifepoint. Manager of shop came out of the back room with a (legally held) gun and shot the erstwhile crim, who later died of injuries. I'm pretty sure that he was not charged with anything at all, using the immediated danger rule, I suppose, in much the same way that whenever our worthy constables blow someone's head off, as long as the procedures have been followed, then they don't get done for murder/m'slaughter.
On a slightly different slant, does anyone know if they've sorted out the problem with the armed response units that meant whenever they shot someone, they were suspended, leading to a big reduction in the numbers of armed police, especially in the Met area?
Orson
|
or even "immediate danger" rule...
Sorry,
O
|
|
|
|
A police officer aquaintance has resisted applying to the armed unit for that very reason: i.e. months suspended whilst having to prove that you needed to fire.
|
A police officer aquaintance has resisted applying to the armed unit for that very reason: i.e. months suspended whilst having to prove that you needed to fire.
Hang on. This reads as though he likes the idea of shooting people but the papaerwork put's him off?
--
These are my own opinions, and not necessarily those of all Toads.
|
"This reads as though he likes the idea of shooting people but the papaerwork put's him off?
--
These are my own opinions, and not necessarily those of all Toads."
Absolutely, it's your opinion and interpretation.
But incorrect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
