Dangerous driving policeman gets off free

Status
Not open for further replies.
"gets off free"? he lost his job for one, also he didn't kill anyone.

so what would you have liked to see given that the CPS say:

"Summary conviction - imprisonment not exceeding 6 months, or a fine, or both

Sentencing Range: Non custodial options may be considered, coupled with a long period of disqualification, but usually a custodial penalty is appropriate, especially where a number of aggravating factors combine."

aggravating factors being (not limited to) - killing someone, leaving the scene of an accident, lying about who was driving etc.

and the rules are different for police amyway, yes he bent/broke those hence he was fired.
 
Last edited:
A disqualification and fine would be suitable for DD. Its what I got for something much less dangerous involving no traffic and no wrong side of road. Like me, he plead guilty to DD, he wasn't contesting the charge. I feel non custodial options are suitable, no way jail for this but the police even says its not right.

He's not lost his job, just not driving in emergency situations.

One rule for the dibble, one for us
 
Last edited:
neil_g said:
not saying it is, just that the punishment is always going to be different from joe public where the guys job was getting to places quickly.
Click to expand...

Joe public would get jail for that, a fine and/or ban would be suitable. Not Jail, thats OTT. Just some form of recompense. Remember, he plead guilty, he wasn't defending the charge. Guilty plea's are a big discount in DD sentencing.
 
Last edited:
Joe Public does not have to deal with a reported gunman that may,or may not, be ready to kill somebody.
 
Jo public doesn't like having cars driving at them down a DCW.

It happened to me once, a Polis driving straight at me down a DCW. Made a complaint about it, never got nowhere with it bar a sincere appology but its quite dangerous actually.
 
Ah...the old "I got done, why didn't he?" bunch of wah-whaing. I see. :arghh:

As you were.
 
viv1969 said:
Ah...the old "I got done, why didn't he?" bunch of wah-whaing. I see. :arghh:

As you were.
Click to expand...
Not often I agree with you, but.................
 
Of course the question can be asked, just don't get the hump when people point out that it smacks of whining simply because you got a more harsh punishment for committing what you perceive to be a lesser crime.

Oh, and if he had sadly killed someone at the time. It would not have been murder.
 
Last edited:
MWHCVT said:
Would you have started this thread if you hadn't beed done and lost your licence in recent history?
Click to expand...

Yes. I've had some member of the public in uniform drive at me on my side of the DCW. It wasn't nice. Really dangerous.

MWHCVT said:
Reading the link you've posted I don't really see what the issue is, the guy was responding to a potentially serious incident and made a judgement call...
Click to expand...

Danger to other members of the public?
 
PS, all you need to prove dangerous driving is whether the driving fell far below the standard of that of a careful and competent driver.

He pled guilty to driving in that manner, and got off totally scot free. Is that really right? The procurator fiscal wouldn't pursue a case unless there was merit in pursuing it.
 
ST4 said:
Yes. I've had some member of the public in uniform drive at me on my side of the DCW. It wasn't nice. Really dangerous.



Danger to other members of the public?
Click to expand...

Was this person a police officer? Or an asda operative in uniform?
If the former and was on duty in an official force vehicle, they are not at that time classed as a member of the public.

And no...for an uncomplicated case of dangerous driving, Joe Public is VERY unlikely to receive a custodial sentence.
 
He plead guilty as strictly speaking he was guilty however he also added mitigation to the case and the result is what you've seen...I've been found guilty of driving without due care recently...I not exactly happy about it but its happened...I'm not going to go around comparing what happened to me to other cases...in this instance we are talking about a highly trained police officer, trained in rapid response driving on a high priority shout...yes maybe he could have done differently but ultimately no body was harmed, no property was damaged
 
Police are always citizens in uniform with exemption from certain traffic regs, but section 2 of the RTA is not one of them. The procurator fiscal chose to pursue a section 2 charge which the chap didn't fight. Section 2 convictions mean fine and ban (normally or maybe jail), he got neither. Sometimes if the licence is neccessary (for work etc or in undue hardship) they will fine the offendor, not disqualify but endorse with points. But to do nothing, thats IMHO a poor judgement. I'm surprised they didn't go the undue hardship route.
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
Police are always citizens in uniform with exemption from certain traffic regs, but section 2 of the RTA is not one of them. The procurator fiscal chose to pursue a section 2 charge which the chap didn't fight. Section 2 convictions mean fine and ban (normally or maybe jail), he got neither. Sometimes if the licence is neccessary (for work etc or in undue hardship) they will fine the offendor, not disqualify but endorse with points. But to do nothing, thats IMHO a poor judgement. I'm surprised they didn't go the undue hardship route.
Click to expand...

You should have just put your hand in your pocket and got a decent lawyer.
 
viv1969 said:
You should have just put your hand in your pocket and got a decent lawyer.
Click to expand...

I did...spared me jail time and was an asset guiding me through the process and appealing to the judge to sentence at the pleading diet rather than call in back ground reports. The Lanark judiciary is a notably hard line one on speeding/traffic offences (that, speed, was the factor in securing me a DD conviction).

I didn't have a hope in hell of going for an undue hardship case. Otherwise, the lawyer would have done that.
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
I did...spared me jail time and was an asset guiding me through the process and appealing to the judge to sentence at the pleading diet rather than call in back ground reports. The Lanark judiciary is a notably hard line one on speeding/traffic offences (that, speed, was the factor in securing me a DD conviction).

I didn't have a hope in hell of going for an undue hardship case. Otherwise, the lawyer would have done that.
Click to expand...

And what speed were you recorded driving at?
 
You are aware, I'm sure, of the difference between yourself and a rapid response officer reacting to reports of an armed man threatening others.

I'm sure you have also read the linked report in detail.

I have no idea why you feel it necessary to complain about the treatment of yourself compared to the officer - none whatsoever.

Edit

138 MPH?

I'm dumbstruck.
 
Last edited:
its called mitigation - moron driving like a tit is not the same as a police officer responding to a 999 fire arms call. he still has a criminal record.

ST4 said:
A disqualification and fine would be suitable for DD. Its what I got for something much less dangerous involving no traffic and no wrong side of road. Like me, he plead guilty to DD, he wasn't contesting the charge. I feel non custodial options are suitable, no way jail for this but the police even says its not right.

He's not lost his job, just not driving in emergency situations.

One rule for the dibble, one for us
Click to expand...
 
I'm not condoning what I did. Nor do I think the officers behaviour was either safe or considerate of the public but had real danger, as did the procurator fiscal. Driving down the wrong side of a DCW is dangerous. Its not on.
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
I'm not condoning what I did. Nor do I think the officers behaviour was either. Driving down the wrong side of a DCW is dangerous
Click to expand...
If said chap with the gun had gone on a shooting spree, killing members of the public and the policeman had sat patiently fighting his way through traffic, then i`m sure that some would be screaming for his blood for reacting too slowly.

Impossible to please everybody.
 
simon ess said:
You are aware, I'm sure, of the difference between yourself and a rapid response officer reacting to reports of an armed man threatening others.

I'm sure you have also read the linked report in detail.

I have no idea why you feel it necessary to complain about the treatment of yourself compared to the officer - none whatsoever.

Edit

138 MPH?

I'm dumbstruck.
Click to expand...

Apparently so was he....behind the wheel.
 
I thought the armchair legal experts had been quiet too long....

Oh well, here we go.

He pleaded guilty to Dangerous driving. Therefore (ST4), why on earth you are gibbering on about a defence to S2, I have no idea. A plea of guilty means that any defence has been waived.

Moving on, the more literate ones of you would have seen this was a 'special reasons hearing'. I suppose I am now going to have to explain it, aren't I?

Special reasons isn't a defence as such, it's where a defendant (any defendant, not just police officers), pleads guilty, but as part of his mitigation gives valid reasons for committing the offence. So, for example, there one of you is, at 2am, on an empty motorway, doing 130mph, but in the car you have a child with an arterial wound who you are taking to Hospital, and the ambulance service have told you that they will be there a week next Tuesday.

You have no defence to speeding, there are no circumstances where you exceed a speed limit and are not guilty as a member of the public. But you can use Special Reasons, in those or similar circumstances.

All he has done, is the same as you would, and the result is likely to have been the same, so (ST4), no, the Police Officer has not been treated any differently to anyone else.

Was his driving S2? Seen the full video have you? No, thought not, so the opinion it is S2 is worth nothing what so ever. The opinion of the training Sgt? Not worth much either to be honest. Most driving trainers I ever met spend exactly no time doing operational driving. In any case, the last one that went to court and said that had a jury disagree with him (Hants officer was acquitted at Guilford Crown Court). I have spend a great deal of time on the wrong side of the road, and been perfectly happy it was safe, if it wasn't, I wouldn't have been there. Driving on the wrong side of a dual carrigeway in a bloody big Landrover, with the outside car, disco and sound system blaring would be no danger at all to anyone looking beyond the end of their bonnet, if you can't see that a long way off and act, then you shouldn't be on the road!

I also refer you to the Magistrates Comments, that she recognized his plea. I suspect that meant, "OK, you pleaded to it, but as I have seen all the evidence (as opposed to the usual internet 'experts', who almost never do!), and if you have gone to trial on it, I would have acquitted you". That option wasn't open to her, but in any case, as a result of the special reasons hearing, she gave the sentence she did. He does though still have a conviction for dangerous driving.

I think St4, this is more about sour grapes because you were not bright enough to look at that big round dial in front of you. He's trained, practiced and in a vehicle that is safe to drive fast in. Were you?
 
Last edited:
A land rover is the ideal vehicle to drive in quickly...right. I note the points about it bring blues and twos etc.

Why would the fiscal even pursue a sec 2 charge at all if there was no merit in it? It seems odd. Why did he even plead guilty to sec 2. I'll tell you why. The driving fell far below the standard of a careful and competent driver. That's how S2 is assessed.

Nothing to do with sour grapes at all.
 
Last edited:
Because the PF, like the CPS is under pressure too do so. Down here it's under pressure from the (Un)independent Police Complaints Commission, I have no doubt the Scots equivalent is just as itching to get a Police Officer banged up, it's easier to get convictions for diving offences and that covers their incompetence at crime matters, or perhaps it's just far fewer Police officers really are guilty than they think?
Why did he plead? Simple really, if he didn't, he would go to trial on it. If it ended up in front of a Jury it could go any way. He would loose the special reasons option. In front of a magistrate, or sherrif up there, I doubt it would have been given any house room, but Jury's are a funny lot.
 
Fair enough. In my case, the mitigation (what little there was) was done at the pleading diet with the Sherriff dealing with it then and there.

I doubt the fiscal wants to bite the hand that feeds them which is the
police. The police gives them the work to do that keeps them in a job.

Tbh section 2 cases without damage to property or persons are a waste of court time imho.

The PF or courts could come up with a plead guilty you get this sort of punishment (a bit like a speeding ticket) and if you plead guilty you surrender your licence and money. Disagree with punishment, lawyer up. Want to plead not guilty, court time.
 
Last edited:
Well, they do with most traffic offences, within limits, so for example speeding below 100 on a motorway is dealt with by FPN, it's only above that 100 you go to court, part of the reason for that is it's a disqualification offence, and someone may have special reasons.
With dangerous driving, one size fits all, doesn't.
This being a good example, had he been in an unmarked car, with no disco lighting and without the ice cream van noise, then I'd agree it would make it dangerous. different circumstances, different outcome.
 
Bernie174 said:
I thought the armchair legal experts had been quiet too long....

Oh well, here we go.

He pleaded guilty to Dangerous driving. Therefore (ST4), why on earth you are gibbering on about a defence to S2, I have no idea. A plea of guilty means that any defence has been waived.

Moving on, the more literate ones of you would have seen this was a 'special reasons hearing'. I suppose I am now going to have to explain it, aren't I?

Special reasons isn't a defence as such, it's where a defendant (any defendant, not just police officers), pleads guilty, but as part of his mitigation gives valid reasons for committing the offence. So, for example, there one of you is, at 2am, on an empty motorway, doing 130mph, but in the car you have a child with an arterial wound who you are taking to Hospital, and the ambulance service have told you that they will be there a week next Tuesday.

You have no defence to speeding, there are no circumstances where you exceed a speed limit and are not guilty as a member of the public. But you can use Special Reasons, in those or similar circumstances.

All he has done, is the same as you would, and the result is likely to have been the same, so (ST4), no, the Police Officer has not been treated any differently to anyone else.

Was his driving S2? Seen the full video have you? No, thought not, so the opinion it is S2 is worth nothing what so ever. The opinion of the training Sgt? Not worth much either to be honest. Most driving trainers I ever met spend exactly no time doing operational driving. In any case, the last one that went to court and said that had a jury disagree with him (Hants officer was acquitted at Guilford Crown Court). I have spend a great deal of time on the wrong side of the road, and been perfectly happy it was safe, if it wasn't, I wouldn't have been there. Driving on the wrong side of a dual carrigeway in a bloody big Landrover, with the outside car, disco and sound system blaring would be no danger at all to anyone looking beyond the end of their bonnet, if you can't see that a long way off and act, then you shouldn't be on the road!

I also refer you to the Magistrates Comments, that she recognized his plea. I suspect that meant, "OK, you pleaded to it, but as I have seen all the evidence (as opposed to the usual internet 'experts', who almost never do!), and if you have gone to trial on it, I would have acquitted you". That option wasn't open to her, but in any case, as a result of the special reasons hearing, she gave the sentence she did. He does though still have a conviction for dangerous driving.

I think St4, this is more about sour grapes because you were not bright enough to look at that big round dial in front of you. He's trained, practiced and in a vehicle that is safe to drive fast in. Were you?
Click to expand...
Bernie, I thought your post was well argued and very informative but it really didn't need the patronising tone
 
All in all, very surprised the polis admitted dangerous driving, they have a lot of latitude in those situations.

As for the ST fella, well at last he admitted he got caught:rolleyes:
 
To be honest I'm not concerned how the police drive when they are on an emergency call, it's other motorists duty to move over and leave a clear path for them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top