Prison for 77 year old "taking son's points"

[fuzzer]

I think that whenever a police officer gets caught telling lies under oath there are usually huge ramifications, but as far as I am aware what we are discussing is someone simply filling in forms with deliberate whoopsies? There was NO lies actually spoke in a court of law, or have I misunderstood the original post?

John

Caught being the critical word here

 

[recycled]

Even when they are caught, do they really go to jail?

 

[IBIZA]

If it is not stamped out for minor offences, the next stage is hit and run

Dont be silly, with hit and run they claim the car was stolen

Probably because that was contempt of court, rather than perverting the course of justice. Different offences.

However, similar offences as being a fixed penalty it never reached court at that stage.

...and quite possibly did represent a risk to society. We don't know what the son's existing points were for, not necessarily speeding ... could have been defective tyres or anything else.

Had it been anything seriously he would have been banned for it. From the comment you regard tyre offences more seriously than speeding - which I would agree with. However as I recall there are more people with than without camera points so is starts becoming silly when to have committed an offence is the norm, and from your comparison you see it as a comparatively trivial offence.

Obviously though the issue is lying - but lying over something trivial does not mean sending an old man to prison.

Currently the worst lying/contempt/perjury must be trying to hide that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction to prompt an invasion killing hundreds of thousands. And the sentence for being caught...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/03/wscooter103.xml

 

[glojo]

Funny you should say that .A police man has just lost his job while his two mates in liverpool have been reprimanded for lying and planting/fabricating evidence to get a man jailed.

I have read the link that you kindly posted and the police officer got what he deserved and I have NO sympathy. Was this in a court or was the punishment dished out by the police themselves? A Merseyside Police hearing found the 38-year-old, who was off-duty at the time, guilty of physically and verbally abusing the 21-year-old man.

We are going way off topic, but a defendant that lies in court is the 'norm' and appears to be expected and it is that issue that I always find unacceptable. This officer did not go to prison but that is a court decision, he was punished (quite rightly) for his conduct and not only lost his job, but his pension and most probably a lot of other things he had grown used to, mortgage, possible HP commitments etc etc. There should NEVER be a 'one law' for one section of society and another for a different section but is it off topic for this specific thread?

John

 

[recycled]

i am not sure it is off topic john. It is bang on topic.I think the punishment was too harsh for the old man and too lenient for the police officer. It should be one rule for all, not if an old man lies about points put him in jail but if a copper or politician lies about fabriating evidence, he does not go to jail but loses his job when all his mates and contacts can get him another one.

 

[glojo]

i am not sure it is off topic john. It is bang on topic.I think the punishment was too harsh for the old man and too lenient for the police officer. It should be one rule for all, not if an old man lies about points put him in jail but if a copper or politician lies about fabriating evidence, he does not go to jail but loses his job when all his mates and contacts can get him another one.

I can only comment on the newspaper report which is not the wisest of things to do, so I will simply point out that the police officer was dealt with by an internal employer discipline hearing. I could not find anything that said this person lied to a court? As stated I have NO KNOWLEDGE of what statement\evidence was submitted to the court and what, IF anything this person said? The newspaper stated he gave false evidence but it certainly does not say who or where this evidence was given? Did they give a verbal account to an investigating officer? Did they make a written statement and it was this that was unacceptable and was rejected by the police before it got to the court? Did they lie to the court and the court accepted the evidence? Those are a few suggestions but punishment can never be equal and it is perhaps unfair to suggest it.

In my experience whenever a person in a position of trust gets put before the courts, they are usually dealt with FAR more severely. The case recycled has put forward was dealt with by an internal employer discipline procedure so did this officers evidence ever leave the police station? I ask this because if the evidence had been heard in open court then would this officer then have been put before the courts instead of the internal procedure?

Is this elderly man we are discussing of previous good character? Has he done this before? His son has all those points on his licence, is he of good character? has he got previous convictions? has either of them committed perjury before? Some folks think it unfair, but none of us really know all the facts? The judge on the other hand was fully aware of ALL the circumstances and punished them both accordingly.

I may not be overly impressed with our courts, but is there any better system and if so lets start a new thread and put it forward.

John

 

[IBIZA]

Reversing the roles - there was a cop who on his beat popped in to see a lady to entertain her without his uniform - and was convicted under some archaic statue covering public employees having their jollies while working.

Prescott committed an idintical offence - and enough people made complaints (that was when i discovered the offence) - yet nothing happened in his case.

However generally I would agree the police can avoif proscecution fairly easily.

Someone submitted a FOI request a while back relating to police cars caught speeding on cameras and asking how many were dropped. A few forces dropped every speeding camera offence against their cops, which makes this old guys offence seem ever more trivial.

 

[R2e]

I can't believe the self righteous twaddle I'm hearing, please listen to yourselves will you. A 77 year old goes to court for trying to help his son avoid a ban. How easy is it to get twelve points these days, hell, you can do it in a day. How would you cope with a ban? I know it would mean I was out of work. But for burglary, GBH, etc? Community service and a suspended sentence anyone?

Please cut the guy a little slack. He did not deserve to go to jail, particularly not at 77 years old. The fact that he gets scant sympathy on this thread really bothers me. I just hope that one day you all face the same dilemna. Of course you would never do the same.................. or would you?

You know there are laws and laws, crimes and crimes. Murder is not quite the same as spitting on the bus.

 

[smillion]

I can't believe the self righteous twaddle I'm hearing, please listen to yourselves will you.

Well said IMO.

I knew the judge's decision might have been a contentious but even I was surprised to see the reaction here. Especially after the apparant lack of disgust at someone settling light to the Gatso's on the A2 (which someone has already rightly pointed out)

Interesting to see the majority of the 350 comments on the Pistonheads thread were pro the old man.

Fascinating mix of opinions.................which is probably why I'm glad not to be a judge. You can't please all of the people etc etc

 

[R2e]

Well said IMO.

I knew the judge's decision might have been a contentious but even I was surprised to see the reaction here. Especially after the apparant lack of disgust at someone settling light to the Gatso's on the A2 (which someone has already rightly pointed out)

Interesting to see the majority of the 350 comments on the Pistonheads thread were pro the old man.

Fascinating mix of opinions.................which is probably why I'm glad not to be a judge. You can't please all of the people etc etc

Though I'm a card carrying atheist, there was someone who once made a comment about throwing the first stone which comes to mind. The condemnation of this poor old guy who, let's face it, committed a minor misdeneamour that did not hurt anyone else or deprive anyone else of their property, seems way over the top. Just as well Pete Doherty didn't do anything majorly against the law like taking points for someone or he'd have been in jail. If the old man had been shooting heroin or gone in for a bit of shop lifting, he'd have been fine.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of speed cameras, and this has been debated to death, damaging them is not the answer. The points system is however a nonsense in my opinion, the way it is currently structured. A ban is a draconian thing depriving people of transport and possibly affecting their livelihood, and the effect varies depending on where you live and is therefore intrinsically unfair. Similarly it does not have any bearing on the seriousness of the offence. If you live in London and work in London, let's face it you can happily use public transport for the time of the ban as it is an effective way of getting around London. If you live in rural Northumberland you are right royally scr***d. As the law has to do nothing to prove who was driving, you are expected to incriminate yourself, I would guess this practice of taking points for others is extremely widespread.

 

[glojo]

I very occasionally watch those police fly on the wall type documentaries and the thing that really sticks in my mind is the ridiculously light or non existence punishment offenders get IF they get put before our courts. Now I can hear all the members that think this poor defenceless old man has been hard done by, but whilst we are all chuntering about how he is a victim I will respectfully ask again the following:

1. Is this person of good character?
2. Was it his first offence?
3. Has he already got convictions for this type of offence?
4. Has he got a previous suspended sentence?
5. Is he out on licence?

The list is endless but we appear to know better than the Judge who had access to ALL the facts and no doubt this judge has tried hundreds of cases and might, just might have a better idea on what is suitable for this individual?

At what point do we consider attempting to pervert the course of justice is a serious offence? Is it okay to do this for a minor offence and if so where is the line? Why is it right for a minor offence, but wrong for one that some folks might feel is slightly more serious?

Is it okay to lie through your teeth on a legal document knowing full well that you are committing an offence or not? Right or wrong, innocent or guilty?

Is it right to have fixed sentences for every offence with no discretion or should we allow the court to show clemency when required?

Should we also allow the court to decide on what sentence is appropriate for what offender? If the judge had awarded a six month suspended sentence is that acceptable?

What about if this person already has a suspended sentence?

This person was convicted for attempting to pervert the course of justice. He was not convicted of trying to get his son off of a speeding fine. He filled in an official document and lied under oath. If you done the same thing or I did, who knows what the punishment might be. What I do know though is that for a week or two folks might think twice about doing it.

Judging by some replies it appears acceptable to lie under oath but not acceptable for a judge to award a punishment that they deem appropriate. Funny old World.

My money is on the old man appealing and perhaps getting a lighter sentence and then we can all sleep easier in the full knowledge that it is okay to pervert the course of justice. No that man could not possibly have murdered Joe Bloggs he was with me all night and I'll swear on oath that is the truth.

If the old man has done this before and has always failed to pay his fine, failed to comply with community orders, then what do all you folks suggest the court should have done?

I fully agree with the member that said, "I can't believe the self righteous twaddle I'm hearing, please listen to yourselves will you".

My own thoughts on the issue are; I wish we ALL had more respect for the laws of the land.

Yes I break speed limits, yes I park where I shouldn't, and yes I could not throw the first stone, but if I get caught doing wrong then so be it, I know the risks and I'll accept the consequences but I would NEVER attempt to pervert the course of justice. If this was my son, hand on heart.......... I would get him a good lawyer (even though it's against what I believe in ) but sorry I would NOT do what that old man did. No sympathy, but NO opinion on the sentence. I neither agree nor disagree, but having said that, I will not second guess the court without knowing ALL the FACTS.

John

 

[television]

All the above John is so true, there is more than one way of reporting a story by the Press to make it sound readable

 

[glojo]

All the above John is so true, there is more than one way of reporting a story by the Press to make it sound readable

I can think of a certain farmer.

Regards
John

 

[crockers]

I can think of a certain farmer.

Regards
John

True -- amazing isn't it how shooting someone in the back as they run away from you is self defence....but lets not go down this road...:bannana:

 

[R2e]

Good points John, and so many of them!!

I do feel though that 'perverting the course of justice' is a bit strong for the offence, compared with someone who lies about a murder for example. I wish also I had as much faith in judges as you appear to do. They seem to be, like the rest of the population, liable to an attack of bile due to an argument with the wife, or lenient if they've just become a grandad. There are 'hanging' judges and 'liberal' judges, so which one did we have here?

It's all very well saying he might appeal, but unless he's on legal aid, that's an expensive business. No doubt the leniency experienced by Pete Doherty is down to the size of his wallet and consequent quality of his brief.

To be honest, if I was in a situation where I had 9 points (I'm not thank goodness, still there but for the grace of god......) and received a ticket, I would appreciate one of my family taking the points, as otherwise my livelihood would be at risk. It is possible, if I went to court, that the magistrates would accept this in mitigation and not apply a ban, but I wouldn't trust a magistrate as far as I could throw him. No legal training, just an upright member of the community who feels he is moral enough to dispense justice to the masses............no thanks!

The man who said the law was an ass was not far wrong.

 

[Swiss Toni]

Good points John, and so many of them!!

I do feel though that 'perverting the course of justice' is a bit strong for the offence, compared with someone who lies about a murder for example. I wish also I had as much faith in judges as you appear to do. They seem to be, like the rest of the population, liable to an attack of bile due to an argument with the wife, or lenient if they've just become a grandad. There are 'hanging' judges and 'liberal' judges, so which one did we have here?

It's all very well saying he might appeal, but unless he's on legal aid, that's an expensive business. No doubt the leniency experienced by Pete Doherty is down to the size of his wallet and consequent quality of his brief.

To be honest, if I was in a situation where I had 9 points (I'm not thank goodness, still there but for the grace of god......) and received a ticket, I would appreciate one of my family taking the points, as otherwise my livelihood would be at risk. It is possible, if I went to court, that the magistrates would accept this in mitigation and not apply a ban, but I wouldn't trust a magistrate as far as I could throw him. No legal training, just an upright member of the community who feels he is moral enough to dispense justice to the masses............no thanks!

The man who said the law was an ass was not far wrong.

You should (genuinely!) spend some time in the public gallery at a Crown Court - it would respore your faith!

 

[ceejaySL]

Is the problem a crime vs punishment balance?

If the penalty for illegal parking was death, then there would be no illegal parking.

To be fair, if my livelehood depended on keeping a licence, (it does) I would not accumulate points.(I haven't) Big deterrent to me.

"Its only a bit of helping the family......" but it is against the law and it is deceitful. What next? Send a mass murdering General and dictator into retirement rather than face trial because he is a bit do lally?

Yes the law makes mistakes, but so does the press when it reports cases.

I know which I would rather trust to get it right.

But I don't think its right some folks are 'above' the law.

 

[Mr E]

To be honest, if I was in a situation where I had 9 points (I'm not thank goodness, still there but for the grace of god......) and received a ticket, I would appreciate one of my family taking the points, as otherwise my livelihood would be at risk.

So what's worse - having contempt for the law, or the law appearing to be heavy handed (and I use "appearing" as we don't have the full story)? If you hold the law of the land in low regard, then you deserve what's coming.

We would have to assume that the guy not only deliberately signed the form knowing that the information was wrong but has also compounded this in court.

As regards to losing the license - who's fault is it that they can't abide by the speed limits and are not observant enough. If a person is at nine points and still insist on speeding, then they've not learned the lesson and deserve what's coming.

The law may be an ass, but at least we know what that ass is. If we choose to disregard that (which we have a right to), then we have to be prepared to accept responsibility for the outcome.

 

[glojo]

I would appreciate one of my family taking the points, as otherwise my livelihood would be at risk.

I always think it's extremely difficult to give a 'What if it were me' type response because usually when the proverbial hits the fan we tend to react in an unpredictable fashion.

If it were me and I had nine points.......

First off, if I NEEDED my licence to provide for my family then I'm letting myself down by accumulating that amount of points. Hand on heart and speaking realistically, I would drive on eggshells way before it got to that state, but there is absolutely.... 100% unequivocal way that I would allow a family member take responsibility for my indiscretions, that to me would be something I just could not imagine, but we are all different and if someone wants to take the hit and I accept it is common practise, then they must be prepared to accept the consequences. I only mentioned the appeal procedure because it is a possibility. Regarding the other statements about 'Hanging Judges' I understand what you mean and accept that some judges have differing standards, but they are still accountable and in this modern age any judge that was OTT would very quickly be up before the boss. It is clear that folks have differing opinions on this issue and perhaps it appears I am on the side of locking this person up no matter what, but I'm not. I just like to think that folks who are aware of all the circumstances might be in a better position to make a judgement. At least we are having a reasoned debate without setting light our keyboards.

I wonder why the son didn't try to say the number plate had been cloned? The car had been stolen? He went out drinking and someone drove him home but he had no idea who it was? etc etc. There are countless options he and a good lawyer could have tried, but he made a conscious decision to take the path he did. His choice, his decision and now he has to take responsibility. Win some, loose some.

John

 

[masqueraid]

Let's remember that the sentence isn't just for a speeding offence. Dad is going to Chokey for perverting the course of justice. His son is also going away (for what is offically 3 months but will turn out to be about 6 weeks). It's becoming common practice for people relying on possession of a driving licence but on 9 points + to pay for someone who hasn't to take the "rap" for the offence. It seems the going rate is £100-300 per point.

The magistrate's view was the practice is going unchecked because people believe that lying on oath is in principle a minor offence, in the public eye lying about a speeding issue even more so. Not helped by the apparent use of speed cameras as revenue collecting boxes.

Despite the likely family pressure dad still had a choice. His choice was to try to protect his son (or his son's licence at least). That involves a gamble that he could be convicted or he might get away with it.

Unfortunately for him his son successfully managed to get him convicted.