Jailed for having a speed camera jammer

[wivenhoe]

A former supercar salesman who had a laser jammer installed in his vehicle to stop him from getting points on his driving licence has been jailed.Nicholas Burke, 46, who was working at a Ferrari dealership in Leeds at the time of the offence, was caught using the device which can prevent readings from being taken by speed cameras by scrambling the signal from a safety camera van.
The defendant, of Stillingfleet, York, pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice and was yesterday sentenced to two months in prison by a judge at York Crown Court.

I knew a jammer was illegal but jailed for owning one ? The guy wasn’t caught speeding, just using one. If his driving was dangerous then he would have been charged with that. Seems a little excessive to jail someone for avoiding speed cameras - tells me the police have given up policing poor / dangerous driving and rely on the cameras to do it for them, albeit they cannot currently detect poor driving. However, see the other thread about the cameras they are introducing in France which do pick up tailgating, wrong lanes etc

 

[saff]

He should have received 2 years IMHO. He obviously has every intention of speeding, placing himself above the law and potentially endangering you, me and every other road user. Its the arrogance of some people that really winds me up.

Just my tuppence worth.

 

[400ixl]

He wasn't caught speeding, well not if he had a jammer which has the sole purpose of stopping getting caught. They are legal to own, illegal to use which is why they can be sold, but he knew fully what he was doing and that if caught with it switched on then the most likely outcome based on history (as he is not the first) is a charge of perverting the cause of justice.

Cameras don't detect poor / dangerous driving, just speeding, which does not need to constitute either other offence.

Take the risk and face the consequences.

 

[wivenhoe]

Update. According to The Times, he was speeding and whilst the jammer stopped the camera recording his speed it did report the jammer. That is a lot different to The Telegraph report which said he was jailed just for owning it

 

[TwoDogs80]

They always get caught!

 

[zoros]

And you would never go down for such a menial offence as this....more to it than meets the eye.

 

[milleplod]

And you would never go down for such a menial offence as this....more to it than meets the eye.

He was sent down for using the device and so committed, and pleaded guilty to, the offence of perverting the course of justice, most assuredly not a 'menial offence'.

Pete

 

[zoros]

I still suspect there's something else going on here. Judges do not imprison members of the public lightly.

 

[milleplod]

I still suspect there's something else going on here. Judges do not imprison members of the public lightly.

It wasn't done 'lightly'. PCOJ carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, it's regarded as being that serious an offence. Don't conflate a relatively minor offence (speeding) with a really serious one (PCOJ). Just because the first is minor, the act of doing something to avoid being caught doing it doesn't mean that that act is also minor!

Pete

 

[Deleted member 6183]

How is this the fault of the police?

My take on it is that Ferrari car salesman is often spotted driving like a loon or allowing potential customers to do so.
Police can't figure out why he never gets caught in radar traps.
Figure out he is using a jammer and do him over properly.

Firm but fair.

 

[snipez999]

He was actually driving his own personal car which was a BMW and report I saw said ‘former’ Ferrari salesman. Most safety camera alert devices just inform rather than block (or seek to deceive) which was the point of the PCOJ charge I believe.

 

[unimog]

Yet Fiona Onasanya perverted the course of justice for actually speeding and got a paltry 10 weeks in jail, and is somehow still allowed to be an MP.

 

[Bellow]

Yet Fiona Onasanya perverted the course of justice for actually speeding and got a paltry 10 weeks in jail, and is somehow still allowed to be an MP.

Fiona Onasanya got caught speeding then lied about who was driving. Burke, installed his jammer with the intention of speeding with impunity. The degree of premeditation in Burke's case raises its level.

As I said at the time of the Huhne and Pryce prosecutions, there would be quite a few men realising they could never divorce without a stint behind bars....

 

[unimog]

Fiona Onasanya got caught speeding then lied about who was driving. Burke, installed his jammer with the intention of speeding with impunity. The degree of premeditation in Burke's case raises its level.

As I said at the time of the Huhne and Pryce prosecutions, there would be quite a few men realising they could never divorce without a stint behind bars....

I don't agree. If you are going to rely on speed cameras for prosecutions, then refusing to name a driver, or naming someone else as the driver should be viewed the same as Burke's case, whether premeditated or not, the objective is to evade prosecution? The amount of people that do name other drivers is huge, and undermines the whole system.

 

[tangey]

I don't agree. If you are going to rely on speed cameras for prosecutions, then refusing to name a driver, or naming someone else as the driver should be viewed the same as Burke's case, whether premeditated or not, the objective is to evade prosecution? The amount of people that do name other drivers is huge, and undermines the whole system.

Well one action evades detection of an offence (camera jammer), the other evades aportioning an offence to the correct party.
It appears one of those is considered a bigger issue than the other.

 

[Bellow]

I don't agree. If you are going to rely on speed cameras for prosecutions, then refusing to name a driver, or naming someone else as the driver should be viewed the same as Burke's case, whether premeditated or not, the objective is to evade prosecution? The amount of people that do name other drivers is huge, and undermines the whole system.

Any driver can refuse to name the driver including themself - and may want to to avoid a prosecution worse than being prosecuted for 'failing to identify'. They will have told no lie. Naming another who wasn't the driver is PCOJ. The former merely a right not to self incriminate.

To take the Huhn case as an example. It's unlikely he left the house with any intention other than completing his journey. What then happened is well documented, but to be on a par with Burke's level of premeditation he would have had to intend wilful speeding fully expecting his wife to take the prosecution if he was incriminated. Plausible?

 

[unimog]

Any driver can refuse to name the driver including themself - and may want to to avoid a prosecution worse than being prosecuted for 'failing to identify'. They will have told no lie. Naming another who wasn't the driver is PCOJ. The former merely a right not to self incriminate.

I understand what you say about not naming the driver. The issue with the camera system has always been about this, if nobody names the driver and takes the smaller fine then cameras are nothing more than a revenue generation tool. Speeding is still a problem and public trust in traffic policing is lost, QED. You get the same penalty for refusing to do a breath test as you do for drink driving (arguably for the same reasons as incriminating yourself) then why not change (increase) the penalty for not naming the driver to deter the practice? (I appreciate this is a deeper conversation, but the point here is about speed cameras, their use and validity of them).

To take the Huhn case as an example. It's unlikely he left the house with any intention other than completing his journey. What then happened is well documented, but to be on a par with Burke's level of premeditation he would have had to intend wilful speeding fully expecting his wife to take the prosecution if he was incriminated. Plausible?

Again you are correct, its not really plausible as he probably didn't intend to break the law. There is clearly a little more to the Burke story than reported though. Owning and installing laser devices on a car is not illegal, and using them for the intended purpose is not illegal. In this instance the guy was made an example of to deter others from doing the same, jail was a bit harsh considering it was a simple misuse of a legal product. You can buy laser parking devices and program an offset into them, so it doesn't interfere with the laser camera by giving an error or no reading, but the unintended consequence of this is that when a signal is received from the police laser camera, the device fitted in your vehicle may over/under report your speed depending on set up. The scamera partnership operator would therefore not be alerted by an error message as was the case here.

I accept everyone else's view on this, but don't see how using a legal to buy, install and use device is more premeditated than naming someone else as a driver when caught speeding. Burke may be stupid but that is not grounds for the severity of his sentence. This is just one UK company offering Laser parking devices:

Police Laser Jammer Fitted - Legally

 

[milleplod]

I understand what you say about not naming the driver. The issue with the camera system has always been about this, if nobody names the driver and takes the smaller fine then cameras are nothing more than a revenue generation tool. Speeding is still a problem and public trust in traffic policing is lost, QED. You get the same penalty for refusing to do a breath test as you do for drink driving (arguably for the same reasons as incriminating yourself) then why not change (increase) the penalty for not naming the driver to deter the practice? (I appreciate this is a deeper conversation, but the point here is about speed cameras, their use and validity of them).



Again you are correct, its not really plausible as he probably didn't intend to break the law. There is clearly a little more to the Burke story than reported though. Owning and installing laser devices on a car is not illegal, and using them for the intended purpose is not illegal. In this instance the guy was made an example of to deter others from doing the same, jail was a bit harsh considering it was a simple misuse of a legal product. You can buy laser parking devices and program an offset into them, so it doesn't interfere with the laser camera by giving an error or no reading, but the unintended consequence of this is that when a signal is received from the police laser camera, the device fitted in your vehicle may over/under report your speed depending on set up. The scamera partnership operator would therefore not be alerted by an error message as was the case here.

I accept everyone else's view on this, but don't see how using a legal to buy, install and use device is more premeditated than naming someone else as a driver when caught speeding. Burke may be stupid but that is not grounds for the severity of his sentence. This is just one UK company offering Laser parking devices:

Police Laser Jammer Fitted - Legally

Failing to provide driver details carries 6 penalty points and a maximum £1000 fine.

PCOJ -
The offence of Perverting the Course of Justice is committed when an accused:

• does an act or series of acts;
• which has or have a tendency to pervert; and
• which is or are intended to pervert;
• the course of public justice.

So, by fitting a device that has a lawful use, but with the intention of using it illegally (he pleaded guilty, remember) he places himself fairly and squarely in line for a PCOJ charge, end of. He wasn't 'stupid', because he knew exactly what the device was meant to do, and that's the use he was putting it to (he pleaded guilty, remember). You may well be able to fit such a device that doesn't interfere with a laser, and which simply gives a warning - but laddo's device jammed the laser. He was 'made an example of' because he admitted to PCOJ, not because he had a device fitted, but because he used it to pervert the course of public justice. It's not an offence per se to have such a device fitted, it's the use to which it's being put at a particular moment that can lead to a PCOJ charge, each case standing, or otherwise, on its particular merits. It's the evidence that supports a charge that's important, every time. No 'jam' warning on the laser? No suspicion of any PCOJ naughtiness then.

Pete

 

[Bellow]

I understand what you say about not naming the driver. The issue with the camera system has always been about this, if nobody names the driver and takes the smaller fine then cameras are nothing more than a revenue generation tool. Speeding is still a problem and public trust in traffic policing is lost, QED. You get the same penalty for refusing to do a breath test as you do for drink driving (arguably for the same reasons as incriminating yourself) then why not change (increase) the penalty for not naming the driver to deter the practice? (I appreciate this is a deeper conversation, but the point here is about speed cameras, their use and validity of them).

'' if nobody names the driver and takes the smaller fine'' and the accompanying six points.....

Again you are correct, its not really plausible as he probably didn't intend to break the law. There is clearly a little more to the Burke story than reported though. Owning and installing laser devices on a car is not illegal, and using them for the intended purpose is not illegal. In this instance the guy was made an example of to deter others from doing the same, jail was a bit harsh considering it was a simple misuse of a legal product. You can buy laser parking devices and program an offset into them, so it doesn't interfere with the laser camera by giving an error or no reading, but the unintended consequence of this is that when a signal is received from the police laser camera, the device fitted in your vehicle may over/under report your speed depending on set up. The scamera partnership operator would therefore not be alerted by an error message as was the case here.

I accept everyone else's view on this, but don't see how using a legal to buy, install and use device is more premeditated than naming someone else as a driver when caught speeding. Burke may be stupid but that is not grounds for the severity of his sentence. This is just one UK company offering Laser parking devices:

Police Laser Jammer Fitted - Legally

As you say, different views but, consider a large kitchen knife that is legal to own. How it is used however.....
IMO anyone using anything with the intention of jamming police laser/radar/etc can expect jail time. I don't shed tears for those so arrogant - and stupid. Without the penalty, we'd all be using them - as a 'just in case' back-up.