Only in West Yorkshire

[boxerscott]

http://cars.aol.co.uk/2015/02/25/driver ... d%3D332309

Seemed harsh at first glance.

What age do you start to " grow up"?

[Blackal]

I'll precede this with the statement that although I have seen all 7 series of "Boston Legal" - I'm no expert on UK Law

Whilst I know that the "Law" take the charge of "Attempting to pervert the course of justice" - very seriously............

I would expect that you actually have to be committing an offence - in order to "attempt to pervert the course.........."

So - would it not be necessary to prove that he was actually speeding?

I don't think you can presuppose that a crime is "potentially" going to occur, and then apply a law to that supposition?

A bit like getting charged with "Fleeing the scene of a crime" - if there hadn't actually been a crime? All you are guilty of - is "running"

I think a custodial sentence for this fella is way over the top.

Al

[Boxered]

The big problem here is that he admitted the offence, probably on advice from his defence team.

Steve

[f90x]

I'll precede this with the statement that although I have seen all 7 series of "Boston Legal" - I'm no expert on UK Law

Loved that show. Captain Kirk is brilliant.




A bit like getting charged with "Fleeing the scene of a crime" - if there hadn't actually been a crime? All you are guilty of - is "running"

I think a custodial sentence for this fella is way over the top.

Al

Thing is it is illegal to have a jammer. He knew that and had been warned before. The question of him actually breaking the speed limit on that occasion is moot but with a jammer his intent is clear. Personally I think he's a piss taker. If he'd been given another warning my guess is that he'd just do it again. We all like to press on a bit but we take our chances and keep our eyes open. That jammer gave him a bigger advantage to take the piss with speed and let's face it, most speed traps are in built up or slower speed areas so we can have a good guess at the type of driver he is.
What's the other answer; keep letting him off until he flattens someone whilst driving around over the speed limit because he thinks he's safe in the knowledge that he won't get a speeding fine? He took a chance, broke the law (again) and lost.

That's my tuppence, like it or don't

[Blackal]

But - he doesn't appear to have been convicted of "using a device contrary to the etc etc..............." He has been convicted of "Attempting to pervert the course of justice"

It doesn't seem to be (to me) the appropriate conviction, and therefore penalty.

Al

[popsky]

Thing is it is illegal to have a jammer. He knew that and had been warned before. The question of him actually breaking the speed limit on that occasion is moot but with a jammer his intent is clear. Personally I think he's a piss taker. If he'd been given another warning my guess is that he'd just do it again. We all like to press on a bit but we take our chances and keep our eyes open. That jammer gave him a bigger advantage to take the piss with speed and let's face it, most speed traps are in built up or slower speed areas so we can have a good guess at the type of driver he is.
What's the other answer; keep letting him off until he flattens someone whilst driving around over the speed limit because he thinks he's safe in the knowledge that he won't get a speeding fine? He took a chance, broke the law (again) and lost.

That's my tuppence, like it or don't

+ 1

[dave the german]

Report isn't that clear - it does say that they failed to register his speed on two occasions. It seems to me that is why he's been stopped nd then they "discovered" the device. He has been convicted before for this so likely there is marker against his vehicle reg? Personally after the first time I'd been caught I would have ditched the jammer. I think maybe the courts have had to be seen to act, hence the prison sentence. Be interesting to know if he ditches the jammer when he gets out

[Corvus]

I can see blackal's train of logic here.

Perverting the course of justice? Ok, so it's illegal to use one of these devices, but he's not saying he didn't have one. So he's not perverting that particular course.

We can't prove he was actually speeding because the detection devices were unable to detect him.

I guess perverting the course of justice amounts to setting out to disable HM equipment installed for the purpose of catching criminals.

But then (circular logic) we don't know he was guilty of the crime that the devices were put there to detect.

It's beautiful.

Well, to my simple brain it is.

[Sherrif]

He had a device that enabled him to break the law - simple

[Blackal]

He had a device that enabled him to break the law - simple

His car falls into that category, too

[Corvus]

He had a device that enabled him to break the law - simple

His car falls into that category, too

And, thanks to many years absorbing the techniques of Bruce Lee, my finger ends do too.

[Sherrif]

He had a device that enabled him to break the law - simple

His car falls into that category, too

Ok then his car is able to break the law by going over the designated speed limit and if caught doing so is liable to several penalties.
He has used a device that would or could avoid detection of that lawbreaking and is so perverting the course of justice.

[Sherrif]

He had a device that enabled him to break the law - simple

His car falls into that category, too

And, thanks to many years absorbing the techniques of Bruce Lee, my finger ends do too.

Depends where you put that finger - if by consent ok but may cause a certain amount of pleasure or discomfort to reciever of the finger.
If it was an unwanted intrusion then undoubtedly you may have a problem.

[f90x]

He had a device that enabled him to break the law - simple

His car falls into that category, too

But it is legal to purchase and use a vehicle within the constraints that are dictated to us. A Jammer is illegal to use in the first place and it is actually designed to pervert the actions used to deter speeding and therefor perverting the course of justice. Or something like that.

My new helmet turned up today. It's lovely.

[slparry]

Thing is it is illegal to have a jammer. He knew that and had been warned before. The question of him actually breaking the speed limit on that occasion is moot but with a jammer his intent is clear. Personally I think he's a piss taker. If he'd been given another warning my guess is that he'd just do it again. We all like to press on a bit but we take our chances and keep our eyes open. That jammer gave him a bigger advantage to take the piss with speed and let's face it, most speed traps are in built up or slower speed areas so we can have a good guess at the type of driver he is.
What's the other answer; keep letting him off until he flattens someone whilst driving around over the speed limit because he thinks he's safe in the knowledge that he won't get a speeding fine? He took a chance, broke the law (again) and lost.

That's my tuppence, like it or don't

+ 1

+ anuvver 1