Braking: Perverting the course of Justice?!

[hertsbiker]

Ok, so you saw Plod. Or detected the radar/laser. Or even slowed down because your GPS unit beeped.

Is this Perverting the course of justice?

TO evade the law is a crime?

So are we allowed to brake?

What if the GPS/whatever alerts you in plenty of time to slow down, thus "comply with the law". Isn't this a good thing?

DO THEY WANT you to be caught? if so, they must also *want* you to speed.

Bit contradictory isn't it. On the one hand they apparently want to reduce road deaths, on the other, you get punished for trying to comply.

What DO they really want from us? I know that they rely on the revenue, and if we all stopped speeding for a week, they would DROP the speed limits further.

The hypocracy has to stop somewhere. Get this Bliar fool out, and get him out quick.

C

[lucozade]

The sheer fact that revenue is gathered from this answers your question. It's a win win situation. Think about it. You get a fine and points or a ban. You eventually get your license back and try to get insured. The insurance company charges more because they assess you as being more of a "risk". IPT Insurance premium tax is more hence the Government win again.
WE WILL NEVER WIN THIS ONE SO LONG AS I HAVE A HOLE IN MY ARSE!

[Richard92c2]

Could I suggest surgery?

[soulpatch]

Thats one way they are trying to ban the detectors etc. According to a good copper that I know (i.e does not do people for doing 0.00000000047mph over the speed limit which seems to be the trend these days...) :

If you brake when you see a speed camera and there is a copper behind you, your brake lights coming on is an admission of guilt and you can pretty much be done for driving without due care if not speeding.

Fking Wkers. Catch some fing criminals.

[mondeoman]

soulpatch said: Thats one way they are trying to ban the detectors etc. According to a good copper that I know (i.e does not do people for doing 0.00000000047mph over the speed limit which seems to be the trend these days...) :

If you brake when you see a speed camera and there is a copper behind you, your brake lights coming on is an admission of guilt and you can pretty much be done for driving without due care if not speeding.

Fking Wkers. Catch some fing criminals.

Thats bollocks - cos my brake lights can come on without any braking effect - ever heard of pad-knock off??

[relaxitscool]

mondeoman said:

soulpatch said: Thats one way they are trying to ban the detectors etc. According to a good copper that I know (i.e does not do people for doing 0.00000000047mph over the speed limit which seems to be the trend these days...) :

If you brake when you see a speed camera and there is a copper behind you, your brake lights coming on is an admission of guilt and you can pretty much be done for driving without due care if not speeding.

Fking Wkers. Catch some fing criminals.

Thats bollocks - cos my brake lights can come on without any braking effect - ever heard of pad-knock off??

Have to agree that’s rubbish. Perverting the course of justice entails a lot more than just braking at a camera. Using a laser jammer could be seen as obstructing an officer as the machine has been fitted for one purpose and one only. Whereas it can be argued that radar detectors warn you of up and coming accident blackspots

Regards

Rob

[hertsbiker]

But you'd have to be stupid NOT to brake if you saw the camera. Unless Plod was 2ft off your bumper. Which has been known... actually I think I'd brake even if they were that close. Their dangerous driving, not mine.

[cazzo]

Using a laser jammer could be seen as obstructing an officer as the machine has been fitted for one purpose and one only.

Rob

There is one make of jammer which also works as an automatic garage door opener, gives some justification to having it fitted.

[relaxitscool]

hertsbiker said: But you'd have to be stupid NOT to brake if you saw the camera. Unless Plod was 2ft off your bumper. Which has been known... actually I think I'd brake even if they were that close. Their dangerous driving, not mine.

I would imagine that if plod were behind you, you wouldn't need to brake'cause you'd already be driving / riding at the speed limit

Rob

[chimburt]

reminds me of a story i heard years ago. urban legend perhaps.

chap gets done for speeding in an old fashioned ' speed trap '. upset, the chap decides to make a big sign, saying ' warning - police speed trap ahead ' and sits a few hundred yards down the road. coppers try to do him, but it gets thrown out, because the guy is discouraging people from breaking the law.

don't rememer where i heard this - some bloke in the pub? - i'll get me coat.

[andytk]

I heard an even better urban myth.

Somewhere in the states two kids are out playing and they see a copper standing with a speed trap gun. The enterprising kids come up with a crafty idea. The get two bits of cardboard and write on one SPEED TRAP AHEAD. one kid stands a few hundred meters ahead of the cop just out of his sight holding the sign.

The other kid stands a few hundred meters behind the cop with a cardboard sign saying DONATIONS PLEASE
and holding out a bucket for folk to throw spare change into.

needless to say the copper didn't catch many folk.

Not sure if this story has any basis

Andy


>> Edited by andytk on Friday 25th October 11:54

[madcop]

Ok, so you saw Plod. Or detected the radar/laser. Or even slowed down because your GPS unit beeped.

Is this Perverting the course of justice?

TO evade the law is a crime?

So are we allowed to brake?

Carl
A bit of a bizarre question! The answer is that you would not be perverting justice at all to brake and come within the limit. You would be complying with the law about speed limits so therefore would commit no offence.

You would not be evading the law at all in those circumstances.
You would have been breaking the law in the first place, but only that of exceeding the limit. That in itself is perverting nothing.

The answer is that you should brake, not would you be allowed to break.

Even the burglar that runs from the scene of his crime is not actually perverting justice. There is no law that says you shouldn't run away from his/her offence, just that you should not do it in the first place.

If when you have been caught for an offence, you do something which is subversive about the facts of the case to escape a conviction then that would be perverting Justice.

[cazzo]

The answer is that you should brake, not would you be allowed to break.

Would this be acceptable?








>> Edited by cazzo on Friday 25th October 21:54

[Hardcore2000]

if its not perverting the course of justice for a burgular to run from a crime, this surely means that if you try and get away from the police when they put the blues on, you will not be treated any more harshley if they eventualy catch you??????

[madcop]

Hardcore2000 said: if its not perverting the course of justice for a burgular to run from a crime, this surely means that if you try and get away from the police when they put the blues on, you will not be treated any more harshley if they eventualy catch you??????

You miss the point.

There is nothing in any common law or statute which says once you have commited an offence, it is an offence in itself to leave the area the offence was committed, and to wait for the police to apprehend you.

All that common law and statute says, is that it is an offence to act against a particular law or regulation.
leaving the scene of a crime is not an offence!

In the case where the Burglar tries to get away or succeeds in doing so, he will not commit any further offences if he either walks/runs/cylces away or drives his vehicle within the regulations that govern that particular piece of machinary or the roads he is on when he does so.

If you try to get away from Police who require you to stop in a motor vehicle, then you will commit a second offence in relation to the original one for which you were to be apprehended.

Failing to stop for Police has always been an offence under the Road Traffic Act.

Since 1st October 2002, the offence of failing to stop for Police in uniform has been added to the list of offences which are arrestable offences.

To fail to stop in a motor vehicle now would put you at risk of arrest if caught at the time, or at any other time as long as the officer had reasonable grounds to believe that it was you who was driving at the time you were required to stop.

This may happen days, weeks or even years later without prejudice. Not only that, arrestable ofences have powers attached to them under Sect 17 P.A.C.E. 1984, which allow the Police to force entry to effect arrest without a warrant to any place that they reasonably suspect you may be.

The answer then is, that you would be treated exactly the same as a burglar or rapist or murderer. If you fail to stop for Police in a motor vehicle, the powers of arrest are exactly the same as the other offences mentioned.

Perverting justice requires you to be under investigation for an offence and for you to do something subversive in order to avoid conviction for that offence as Geoffrey Archer did by arranging an alibi he knew was a load of bx so that he won his case and was awarded loads of dosh. The same would have happened if he was being investigated and had been charged with an offence himself and he had lied or invented spurious evidence to get away with it.

Lying in the witness box under oath is compounding the offences to perverting justice and perjury.

I hope that is a little clearer.

Braking to get within a limit is nothing more than an attempt to come within the law even if it is for a short time before you again break that limit and therefore the law again. If you are then required to stop by a Police officer (in uniform) and fail or refuse, you escalate the offence from a minor traffic offence with 3 points attached, to an arrestable offence with bird attached.

[MoJocvh]

"which allow the Police to force entry to effect arrest without a warrant"

God their really getting off on this one eh!

[hertsbiker]

Ok, so can you enlighten us to why some people seem to think that laser/rader detectors are so naughty?

And if I have a jammer (next year?!), yet have already complied with the relevant limit -- am I still in the kak?

cheers, Carl.

[Jason F]

hertsbiker said: Ok, so can you enlighten us to why some people seem to think that laser/rader detectors are so naughty?

Hmm, well I reckon that one could be Tax Evasion

[madcop]

hertsbiker said: Ok, so can you enlighten us to why some people seem to think that laser/rader detectors are so naughty?

No I can't.

And if I have a jammer (next year?!), yet have already complied with the relevant limit -- am I still in the kak?

cheers, Carl.

As fear as I am aware, no you are not.