Motorist uses excuse of "No speed limit signs" to do 98mph

#1
I don't know if I'm missing the point, but regardless of what signs were there, lit or unlit, 98mph is over the speed-limit on any road in the country. I'm deliberately ignoring his occupation, this is not intended to plod-bash, more slippery-barrister-looking-for-loopholes bash.

Linky
Police sergeant appeals 98mph speed case in Colwyn Bay

Sgt Jones had been travelling to Caernarfon with a prisoner

A policeman caught driving at 98mph, nearly twice a 50mph limit, should not have been prosecuted, it is claimed.

Sgt Craig Nicholas Jones, 40, an organised crime officer, is appealing against a speeding conviction while on duty. A decision is expected next week.

His barrister Simon Gurney claimed at Caernarfon Crown Court that it was an "abuse of process".

He said North Wales Police had adopted a policy of not enforcing the speed limit because 50mph signs were unlit.

Mr Gurney said this should have applied to Sgt Jones, when he was caught on the stretch of the A55 expressway concerned, at Colwyn Bay.

Prisoner

The barrister also insisted that, as the signs did not comply with regulations because their lighting had failed, Sgt Jones' conviction should be overturned.

Mr Gurney said: "His knowledge of the speed limit isn't a relevant factor."

A district judge fined Sgt Jones, an advanced police driver, £500 and banned him for 90 days at Llandudno last December.

The penalties were lifted ahead of the appeal.

He had denied speeding late at night last April while taking a prisoner in a police VW Golf to Caernarfon, but was convicted.

The crown court judge and two magistrates who head the case are to give their decision next week.
 
#2
flamingo said:
I don't know if I'm missing the point, but regardless of what signs were there, lit or unlit, 98mph is over the speed-limit on any road in the country. I'm deliberately ignoring his occupation, this is not intended to plod-bash, more slippery-barrister-looking-for-loopholes bash.

Linky
Police sergeant appeals 98mph speed case in Colwyn Bay

Sgt Jones had been travelling to Caernarfon with a prisoner

A policeman caught driving at 98mph, nearly twice a 50mph limit, should not have been prosecuted, it is claimed.

Sgt Craig Nicholas Jones, 40, an organised crime officer, is appealing against a speeding conviction while on duty. A decision is expected next week.

His barrister Simon Gurney claimed at Caernarfon Crown Court that it was an "abuse of process".

He said North Wales Police had adopted a policy of not enforcing the speed limit because 50mph signs were unlit.

Mr Gurney said this should have applied to Sgt Jones, when he was caught on the stretch of the A55 expressway concerned, at Colwyn Bay.

Prisoner

The barrister also insisted that, as the signs did not comply with regulations because their lighting had failed, Sgt Jones' conviction should be overturned.

Mr Gurney said: "His knowledge of the speed limit isn't a relevant factor."

A district judge fined Sgt Jones, an advanced police driver, £500 and banned him for 90 days at Llandudno last December.

The penalties were lifted ahead of the appeal.

He had denied speeding late at night last April while taking a prisoner in a police VW Golf to Caernarfon, but was convicted.

The crown court judge and two magistrates who head the case are to give their decision next week.
Looks like he has a bright future ahead of him as an MP

Odo
 
#3
Yep no excuses, police advanced driver or not he should know that the maximum speed limit on any road in this country is 70MPH and where not a dual carriageway or Motorway it is 60 MPH,so 98MPH is way over the top.

Judge should double the fine and quadruple the ban, after all that is what any member of the public would receive for the same offence.
 
#5
Having re-read the part where his barrister says "His knowledge of the speed limit isn't a relevant factor", I always thought that ignorance of the law was not a defence? Any legal eagles wish to correct me?
 
#6
Screw the twat and be done with it!! :evil:
 
#8
bobthedog said:
Yep no excuses, police advanced driver or not he should know that the maximum speed limit on any road in this country is 70MPH
Mr. Picky says there used to be a 100 limit sign on the test track at Barrowhills.

So, if his lawyers can present a convincing case that he thought he was going round the test track at Barrowhills, I say let him off.

All the best,

John.
 
#9
In the event of no speed limit being displayed, the limit, AIUI from the highway code, defaults to the national speed limit, which is 60mph on single carriageway, 70mph on dual carriageway unless in a built-up area with streetlights, in which case it would be 30mph regardless of the road type.
 
#10
We complain if they spend to long get prisoners in and getting back out on the street, we complain if he speeds so that he can get back out. The Man cant win.

Give him a medal for trying to save working hours
 
#11
The punishment should fit the crime. 6 points, £500 fine, attendance at a speed awareness course and transferred onto one of these for 12 months:




Obviously, if he needs to transfer prisoners, he should be allocated one of these:

 
#12
Jerrycan2793 said:
We complain if they spend to long get prisoners in and getting back out on the street, we complain if he speeds so that he can get back out. The Man cant win.

Give him a medal for trying to save working hours
I presume you are being sarcastic. :D
 
#13
And they wonder why the public has no confidence in them!
CNUT
 

Guns

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#14
Right cos the members of ARRSE are all dutifully driving at the speed limits. Honestly if you could get away with it you would......
 
#15
But he didnt get away with it and now he is wasting the court's time and the public's money whinging when he knows he was way over, not a little bit over.

I bet his boss isnt impressed!
 
#16
flamingo said:
Having re-read the part where his barrister says "His knowledge of the speed limit isn't a relevant factor", I always thought that ignorance of the law was not a defence? Any legal eagles wish to correct me?
No you are entirely correct, ignorance of the law is officially not a lawful excuse (unless mentally disabled, involuntarily intoxicated (i.e. proven to be spiked or via the accidental combination of medicinal products), acting under duress and a couple of other prescribed circumstances) and so according to the law he should be punished.

That said, am I right in thinking that speed limits were only brought in in about the 1930s as a means of combatting the oil crisis of the time? In other words, make everyone slow down, they'll consume less fuel, and therefore the demand for fuel will decrease?

Seeing as the oil crisis has been and gone for many years (not that you'd think it with the current prices), surely speed limits should be abolished altogether? I agree with limits in residential areas due to child saftey but why the hell do we have limits on bigger roads? Everey traffic accident I have ever attended bar two or three has been caused by driver error. On that basis, it is the driver that causes the problem....in a lot of those cases they may have been speeding but that simply means their choice of speed was excessive for the road in case. It is driver error, not speed, that causes accidents.
 
#17
Jonathan_C said:
flamingo said:
Having re-read the part where his barrister says "His knowledge of the speed limit isn't a relevant factor", I always thought that ignorance of the law was not a defence? Any legal eagles wish to correct me?
No you are entirely correct, ignorance of the law is officially not a lawful excuse (unless mentally disabled, involuntarily intoxicated (i.e. proven to be spiked or via the accidental combination of medicinal products), acting under duress and a couple of other prescribed circumstances) and so according to the law he should be punished.

That said, am I right in thinking that speed limits were only brought in in about the 1930s as a means of combatting the oil crisis of the time? In other words, make everyone slow down, they'll consume less fuel, and therefore the demand for fuel will decrease?

Seeing as the oil crisis has been and gone for many years (not that you'd think it with the current prices), surely speed limits should be abolished altogether? I agree with limits in residential areas due to child saftey but why the hell do we have limits on bigger roads? Everey traffic accident I have ever attended bar two or three has been caused by driver error. On that basis, it is the driver that causes the problem....in a lot of those cases they may have been speeding but that simply means their choice of speed was excessive for the road in case. It is driver error, not speed, that causes accidents.
No,the current speed limits were bought in during the 60's,so what?

F*ck the semantics,the ******** was speeding,if the roles were reversed,and it was you in the dock because he had nicked you for speeding,do you honestly think that he would agree if you were using his argument,I think not.
He would intimate that you were a tosser who was speeding,and you deserve to be prosecuted,being a class 1 police driver makes it even worse,hang the bast*rd! :p
 
#18
RoofRat said:
Jonathan_C said:
flamingo said:
Having re-read the part where his barrister says "His knowledge of the speed limit isn't a relevant factor", I always thought that ignorance of the law was not a defence? Any legal eagles wish to correct me?
No you are entirely correct, ignorance of the law is officially not a lawful excuse (unless mentally disabled, involuntarily intoxicated (i.e. proven to be spiked or via the accidental combination of medicinal products), acting under duress and a couple of other prescribed circumstances) and so according to the law he should be punished.

That said, am I right in thinking that speed limits were only brought in in about the 1930s as a means of combatting the oil crisis of the time? In other words, make everyone slow down, they'll consume less fuel, and therefore the demand for fuel will decrease?

Seeing as the oil crisis has been and gone for many years (not that you'd think it with the current prices), surely speed limits should be abolished altogether? I agree with limits in residential areas due to child saftey but why the hell do we have limits on bigger roads? Everey traffic accident I have ever attended bar two or three has been caused by driver error. On that basis, it is the driver that causes the problem....in a lot of those cases they may have been speeding but that simply means their choice of speed was excessive for the road in case. It is driver error, not speed, that causes accidents.
No,the current speed limits were bought in during the 60's,so what?
My point being as said before - stupid mongs that can't read the road cause accidents. So speed limits should be abolished outside of residential areas and people should stop getting their knickers in a twist over it. So he was doing nearly 100 - he hasn't crashed or hurt anyone, nor does the article suggest he had a near miss. His speed was clearly appropriate in every fashion at the time, with the exception of the fact that some halfwit speed limit says he's a very naughty boy.
 
#19
Thousands of people get off motoring offences every year using very similar defences. The only reason this is in the news is that he is plod.
How many people would turn down the opportunity to "get off" because of a flaw in the prosecution case? Speaking personally I would snatch my briefs hands off if he could come up with a wheeze like this that may well work, I suspect most people reading this would as well if they are honest with themselves.
 

Latest Threads

Top