If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
159mph copper facing retrial
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
A police constable who reached 159mph on a motorway has had his acquittal for speeding and dangerous driving overturned by the High Court.
Pc Mark Milton, 38, from Telford, Shropshire, was recorded by the patrol car's video camera on the M54 in 2003.
District Judge Bruce Morgan earlier cleared him after hearing he was "familiarising" himself with a new car.
On Wednesday, two High Court judges sent the case back to Ludlow Magistrates' Court to be heard again.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/4669594.stm
Oh what a pity
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
However, if its just him having a dangerous joy ride because he felt like it then he should have the book thrown at him.
If you believe in the rule of law and justice you should be outraged that this now longer seems to apply.
Yes, we did.
Yes, you should.
I think driving cases are civil or admiralty law in nature though, so that might be why.
He wasnt proven not guilty, his case was thrown out so its different.
But in any case as bong says the case was thrown out- nothing illegal has been done here.
If you have any sense of justice NQA, then you must be pleased that there is going to be another trial. Because it was an absolute fucking outrage that a man that is caught doing 159mph on a motorway gets away with it simply because he's a copper. You and me would have been chucked straight into jail. No slap in the wrist, not just a suspension, jail.
Life's alright for coppers innit? :rolleyes:
It is slightly different though, as I said, if he was told doing this was ok, then I think he should get off and those above him repremanded. But if he did this just on the spur of the moment then he should be charged.
But if that is the case, then I'd be happy for him to be given a lesser sanction and those in charge of him being charged with criminal negligence.
To be frank, that the ludicrous excuses given by the defence were actually deemed valid by the first judge ("He's a really good driver, your honour", "He needs training, you know" or "I need to get familiarised with my car guv") is something so absurd and surreal it wouldn't be out of place in a Monty Python sketch, or in the real-life dealings of a corrupt banana republic.
The person I saw interviewed about it on Channel 4 certainly seemed to suggest that this is the policy of at least his whole Police Authority.
No I've always worried about people being tried and retried until the state gets the results it wants, whether thats a speeding copper or a mass murderer.
He wasnt tried, it was thrown out.
It still went to court - that seems a bit of a technicality to get around double jeopardy to me
I think it's the Crown who have to prove the guilt of the defendant (beyond a reasonable doubt) not the other way around.
as it was a mistrail I guess its not really a double-jeopardy thing.
The prosecution should never be able to appeal on any circumstances - even if the Judge was totally incompetent or the Jury drunk. (Better a guilty man goes free...)
The defence should always have a right of appeal (...than an innocent man goes to jail)
I don't disagree with that when for the defence. I just don't think the prosecution should be given further bites at the cherry
I do definately agree with that if the trial has gone through the full course, even if its a hung jury. But this case didnt really even get off the mark let alone all the arguments put forward.
I don't really see how that makes any difference whatsoever. It would be a rathr ridiculous if an obviously innocent* man had to sit through a full trial/appeal cycle when it could all be sorted in 5 minutes.
*In the opinion of the robe on the day, which is all that counts.