Er, hang on. I need to go and... adjust something.
I wonder how he would stand if he used a passive technology to avoid detection? The principles of electromagnetic stealth design are now fairly well understood, and the advantage would be that it becomes much harder to say that the car was 'intentionally' avoiding detection.
Of course, this means a kit car, but it might be worth it to be radar/laser invisible?
5 grand is some kind of fine... and I suppose it won't add to another 10 grand of fines being taken off his benefits at one pound a week then?
(not if he has his own business and drives a Range Rover - ed)
Edited By Siteowner
So what was he actually proecuted for? Possession of the device - unlikely to be an offense. Use of the device - ell, it all depends? Perverting the course of justice - not usually a mags court matter and not usually resulting in disqualification, unless there was other substantive evidence that he was speeding. As to the fine - high on one reading, but better for him than prison which is the usual destiny for perverters..
Were cost the only consideration, it might be cheapest to obey the speed limits.
Rex: the story says he was found guilty at a Crown Court for perverting the course of justice.
It's silent on the question as to whether there were other charges.
@Rex: I thought how grave perverting the course of justice is regarded, depends on what course was being perverted, so could be decided in a magistrates court if avoiding a speeding ticket was being perverted.
>Were cost the only consideration, it might be cheapest to obey the speed limits.
Sure, if you want the British economy to collapse overnight, Inblognito-JP. If that is your real name, which it isn't - Osama.
Re stealth technology, I was told by a traffic cop friend (well as much a friend as they have) of mine that is was difficult to get a reading from a faired motorcycle. The only effective way he had found was to aim directly at the headlight, otherwise the curve of the fairing would deflect the laser and give an error message. It is also possible that he was having me on and just wanted to increase the chance that he could give me a ticket next time we met on the road.
"...I was told by a traffic cop friend (well as much a friend as they have) of mine that is was difficult to get a reading from a faired motorcycle..."
Indeed. Much the sort of thing I was talking about. Using a metal cooling fan also causes considerable interference, and if were to be installed in front of the radiator!!
There are a host of technical issues to do with the use of automated devices to enforce the law which are not generally understood by the judicial, legislative, executive or media establishments. They are appreciated by technical specialists, but who listens to geeks....?
My comment was supposed to be satirical...
the whole issue was he perverted the cause of true justice. I wonder how much effort has been put into getting this man up to crown
Surely the equipment had to be produced in court so the police could prove the existence of the jamming device.
Did they stop him and search the car? It would be easy to hide most detectors/jammers unless the car was stopped and taken apart on the spot.
This type of instrument is news to me and I wonder if the outcome was intended as a deterrent to other potential users.
Why do the police have the monopoly on fines? Why can't I get a speed detector fitted to my car; drive around quietly snapping all who are speeding, and get the sixty quid (or whatever), money from each offender?
I don't see why it should only be the police who get to keep this cash: can anyone point out the statutory provisions which makes this letter of marque bounty only available to the police?
There was no need for other charges to allow the court to disqualify. Ther is power to disqualify for other offences where there is a link to car use, taxi-touting and kerb crawling being two examples.
anon@ 1.58pm
I'll settle for having the concession for arresting and fining drivers using mobile phones (whilst driving).
In my less than humble opinion, a damned sight more dangerous a violation than speeding.
But then you'd actually have to do some work rather than point & shoot from a bush.
anon,
I don't think there is anything to stop you driving around with a speed detector and bringing private prosecutions (you don't get to keep the fine though)
Aha! Suddenly all you guys who talk on a mobile whilst driving are silent.
He was sentenced for perverting the course of justice which is precisely what he did. His "device" interfered with the Police equipment. The offence is triable ONLY at Crown Coyurt.
What I dislike however is the school of thought that seeks to prevent a driver even knowing where the speed traps actually are! This school would ban speed camera data on sat navs etc. In such cases there is no interference with equipment and at least for some of the time there is some enouragement to adhere to the limits.
I like the devices which flash up to warn of speed but do not actually photograph you. They are sensible and drivers appear to take notice of them.
There is also a need to review speed limits on every road. Some could be reviewed upwards! Such a review would give drivers a fairer deal.
It would also be good to see more use of cautioning for first offenders. It often seems that cautioning is never offered to speeders but is offered to those who commit crimes such as burglary etc. the difference? One is a cash cow.
My parents live on a busy built-up A-road into London (well, they don't actually live in the middle of the road - their house looks onto it). Whilst I was visiting them last month I noticed a bog-standard Police car park stealthily under an adjacent cherry tree, and two coppers got out equipped with what looked like a laser gun from Dr Who and the Cybermen.
I watched them spend a pleasant two or three hours zapping speeding vehicles (there wasn't much else to do that day - only cricket on the telly). It was actually quite comical to see the cars and vans come hurtling over the rise at 55 - 60, and then try to slow down immediately they spotted the 'gunman', but without making it appear too obvious.
I would have gone out and offered them some tea and a slice of my Mother's bread pudding, but they were so busy it would have been a waste of grub!
"There is also a need to review speed limits on every road. Some could be reviewed upwards!"
Snigger. Yeah. Right.
"I like the devices which flash up to warn of speed but do not actually photograph you."
There's a lot of evidence that they're more effective than speed cameras, because they slow the traffic down THERE AND THEN, rather that trying to do it by posting people a letter and hoping they own a TARDIS.
They don't act like magic money machines for the court and police, however...
Quote: "They don't act like magic money machines for the court and police, however..."
Speed cameras are despised because the only time that the middle classes are challenged by law is when they have a speeding ticket. Speed cameras are neutral; if you do not speed, don't worry.
I can't understand why people persist in thinking that bright yellow speed cameras you can see a mile off are just revenue generators. Of course, police behind a bush with a ray gun is different, but as Phil Beesley so rightly observed, they are no problem if you are within the limit.
Speed limits are there to be obeyed, like any law. We can all make mistakes (I had to 'fess up to mine when I filled in my JP application forms) but that doesn't mean we should condemn legitimate efforts to stop the slaughter on the roads.
The machines which tell you how fast you are going but don't book you are rightly spreading fast - they have an immediate effect, no doubt because drivers are not quite sure they won't be booked anyway - and that suggests that many local authorities are in fact keen to reduce accidents rather than just chase the next buck (you could say they do that through their armies of traffic wardens, but that's another story)
The businessman was lucky he was only fined £5000 and got a 12 mth disq for his deliberate efforts to pervert the cause of justice. In my opinion he deserved more.
Anonymouse is correct that perverting the course (sic) of justice is, and justifiably so, considered a very serious matter, arguably striking at the heart of our legal system.
It should be so dealt with, unless of course the offender is a highly paid professional footballer, when a caution is clearly the more appropriate approach.
@ Peter Hargreaves "It would also be good to see more use of cautioning for first offenders."
Some areas (including mine I'm happy to say) are offering first offenders the alternative of taking a day long "speeding awareness course". Take the course (at a cost of £105), get no points on your license.
To alsojp - thanks for spotting that cause and course are not the same thing! I am not in fact anonymouse, actually I am jayceejp but my moniker got lost in the ether for that posting.
It was of course a disgrace that the footballers only got a caution - but I think they had somehow managed to make it too difficult for the CPS to be sure who was actually driving on particular occasions, hence no prosecutions.
If it is suggested that footballers will get a caution as otherwise they would make it more extremely difficult for the CPS to prosecute I would disgaree with that assertion. For a caution to be considered there must be an admisison of guilt which, if there was, wouldn't take much effort to prosecute.
Perverting the Course of Justice does indeed strike at the heart of our legal system and, IMHO he ought to have been sentenced to a custodial sentence, albeit a short one.
Commenting by HaloScan
