[URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_of_scotland/8329590.stm[/URL]
I think we did this to death when he was 1st caught. IIRC, its was in a 40 zone. Those that know the road will appreciate how much traffic there is, how many houses there are. Yes, there are some speedy straight stretches, and a lot of crashes on them.
"However, Sheriff John Horsburgh said there was no alternative to a jail term. He said: "The speed at which you were travelling means a custodial sentence is the only option I have." I thought speeding per se wasn't an offence for which you could be jailed, assuming you are sober, licenced, insured etc. Or have we *completely* gone to the dogs. 166mph isn't dangerous, sometimes groups of sensible riders do that just to catch the ferry.
To the letter of the law, jail isn't an option, but it certainly is in the eyes of the judiciary where excessive speed equates to dangerous driving now. I think we have. But what if a small child had run across the M20 and you'd mowed the poor little mite down?
I wonder why on earth he didn't contest the bloody thing. Broke perhaps. I don't know what the answer is, even in the US, with a proper bill of rights etc, plod and district courts get away with treating speed like attempted murder.
If you were in that position, & the brief said "plead guilty to DD & you might get 9 months & be out in 4, plead innocent & you might get 5 years[1]", what would you do? [1] No idea what the maximum for DD is.
I've been right there. Having a decent Brief he didn't suggest anything so fucking stupid. It is a technical crime. Harming nobody and putting only yourself at risk, if the road is empty. A bit like free rock climbing. 166 on a busyish road would be another matter if I was facing up to it in court but I'd still argue that I was only really putting my life at risk.
Whilst I agree with you 100% you know that you wouldn't get away with claiming that. They (the prosecution and Old Bill) would ensure that the publicity was along the lines of the danger you were to other road users, and if there were none, then to the emergency services when they have come out to scrape you off the scenery. They'd drag out the usual suspects from BRAKE and the like and make sure you hanged for it. You can't even have a quiet puff of a cigar in public without a lynch mob, so doing over 66mph will ensure the pitchforks and flaming torches these days. I agree with Clarkson that anyone doing under 60mph on a national speed limit road is a menace and that instead of speed cameras, police snipers should be placed on motorway bridges to take out the middle lane dawdlers.
Last time was 1998 or thereabouts and I expect over the last 10 years things have gotten a lot worse in the courtroom.
We don't - but pleading guilty and getting a discounted sentence is a different thing altogether. Maybe.
and it seems huge amounts of time, money and resources are deemed justified when dealing with those nasty motorists. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/northern_ireland_politics/8330069.stm
We do now, & it was (& is) common for the prosecution & defence lawyers to reach a compromise on charges, & discounted sentences have always been around for people pleading guilty.
Think about it this way, and a sobering thought it is. Many of the posters to this NG court a significant jail term every week doing something simple which has no victim and does no harm to anyone. Do societies always descend into such madness? Perhaps they do. Remember that you don't even need to produce a current eye test every 1-3 years and have it annotated clearly on the licence if you must wear corrective lenses. So it isn't *really* about accident reduction, it is much nastier than that. Complete madness.
Really? So if your granny was burgled, you'd rather the scrote who did it insisted on dragging the prosecution out as long as possible, putting her through the stress of giving evidence? After all, he's got nothing to gain by pleading guilty, no matter how overwhelming the case.
Would an innocent man be at any kind of significant risk of being found guilty in court? Yes, there's the odd miscarriage of justice - but they're very, very rare.
