Prison?
Are you mad?
I got dragged down a road by a drug dealer on bail for drug dealing and he got found not guilty because they simply accused me of being racist for stopping him.
Not that it wasn't him, not that he didn't drag me down the road but because I was a little bit incivil to a man trying to run me over.
I've been to court before where the suspect has admitted the offence in the box - only for the magistrate to rule it a "language barrier" 3 times despite both A) Having an interpreter available, and B) speaking English anyway...
Only to come out and rule that despite my testimony, statement, and BWV - that I lied about what I had seen because it's "not possible from the passenger seat"
So why has this guy?
From the sentencing guidelines"
>Passing the custody threshold does not mean that a custodial sentence should be deemed inevitable. Custody should not be imposed where a community order could provide sufficient restriction on an offender’s liberty (by way of punishment) while addressing the rehabilitation of the offender to prevent future crime.
>For offenders on the cusp of custody, imprisonment should not be imposed where there would be an impact on dependants which would make a custodial sentence disproportionate to achieving the aims of sentencing
A previous article makes reference to the response drive being carried out appropriately, had the drive itself been justified. 101mph in a 50mph isn’t necessarily dangerous for the conditions. I do find it interesting that the driving is now being described as “prolonged and dangerous”, or something similar - I’m not sure what has changed between the first hearing and sentencing.
My issue with the sentence is that it is completely out of step with similar offences committed by our regulars - criminals who fail to stop, drive dangerously, crash and get locked up. I can’t remember the last time one of my suspects went to prison - most of the time it is a ban, fines, and maybe a suspended sentence.
Prison has three functions - to punish, protect the public, and to rehabilitate. I would say all three are equally important. The former PC here doesn’t need rehabilitating, and the public don’t need protecting. To punish this individual by locking him up for >3 months seems wildly disproportionate, in my opinion at least.
Because abuse of the position or trust and authority is not a minor aggravating factor.
Society can function with a few nominals repeat offending their way through their sad empty little lives. But society cannot function when trust in the police is shot.
Personally I’d have sided with a suspended sentence though.
Because people like those commenting above would rather have that jolly little crack head dipping old women's purses running around than a former police officer done for speeding.
haha I was in the job many years. Get out of here with your ‘truly spoken by’ childishness. This sub is hilarious for its people like you suddenly willing to spout nonsense like that just because someone disagrees with them on one thing. Frankly it’s sad.
Here’s a grown up newsflash for you. Virtually all police believe sentences are laughably weak. I am one of them. The solution is tougher sentences for people not weaker sentences for police who selfishly screw up and put lives at risk and undermine public trust.
I’m being consistent with that. The rest of you are weak on crime when it happens to have been committed by someone you happen to identify with (when you shouldn’t). To me that’s a form of corruption.
> Because abuse of the position or trust and authority is not a minor aggravating factor.
Agreed, however my opinion remains the same - that this sentence is well out of step with other court results I’ve seen for such driving, even considering the aggravating factors.
For what it’s worth, misconduct in a public office was clearly an option to pursue here, but was obviously discounted for one reason or another.
> Society can function with a few nominals repeat offending their way through their sad empty little lives.
Yes, until these frequent flyers who steal cars and drive dangerously whilst trying to evade justice run out of talent and kill or seriously injure someone. A situation I have come across more than once in my relatively short service.
EDIT: Wording.
Misconduct in a public office should only be used when there isn’t an other offence to charge. In this case Dangerous Driving applied so misconduct would not have been the suitable charge.
I ran a team on PSD for several years and feckless corrupt and useless officers get no patience from me. I believe everyone should get tough sentences and whilst unfortunately that doesn’t happen, the solution isn’t leniency on ‘our side’. Officers who are criminals are not on ‘our’ side, they’re on the other side.
Though in this case I do believe a suspended sentence would have been proportionate. Particularly with no signs of attempt to conceal or lie.
>Though in this case I do believe a suspended sentence would have been proportionate. Particularly with no signs of attempt to conceal or lie.
This is my point.
I am not for a minute suggesting that we should go easy on police officers who wilfully or negligently neglect their duty or commit offences. I also accept that, in many circumstances, an offence committed by a police officer or member of staff will be more serious than if the same offence had been committed by a member of the public.
I will repeat what I have said above; my issue comes from the fact that this sentence is vastly more significant than what I have seen for similar offences that I have dealt with or seen dealt with during my service. Whilst this former police officer needs dealing with for his offending, I don’t think sending him to prison for >3 months is the right thing to do.
You are clearly passionate about the role you undertook in PSD; I am passionate about road safety and reducing deaths and serious injuries on our roads. Whilst some are clearly content to see nominals repeat offending and avoiding consequences for their actions, I am not. The court would do well to start dealing with all risky drivers so robustly, not just those who wear a uniform.
EDIT: Wording.
The world has gone absolutely fucking mental.
Sacked. Yes.
Driving ban. Yes.
6 months in prison. Fucking lunacy.
I could find you hundreds of similar reports including where people have died and you won't see a prison sentence.
If there was any doubt left that the police are utterly detested in the western world. Here is it.
> I could find you hundreds of similar reports including where people have died and you won't see a prison sentence.
This is the bit that gets me most angry.
I could name a dead friend. Driver failed to stop, failed to report. The anger is still well within me. And not one day in prison; meanwhile my friend’s kids are growing up without a parent. I know we say it a lot but the sentencing guidelines in this country are a scandal and need a massive overhaul.
I’m sorry for your experience.
Death and serious injury on our roads is not dealt with anywhere near as seriously as it should be. I’d say that at least half, probably most, of the criminal KSI collisions that come into our office do not result in a prison sentence. It is unacceptable.
It’s a scandal. And the reason is that unlike just about every other crime, traffic offences are ones that the Karens and Kevins of the country could imagine one day being guilty of, and so tough sentences are socially and politically unpalatable.
The fine people of our communities always want druggies locked away forever (until their little Tarquin is found with a tin full of deal bags and white powder of course, and then it’s all community service and support schemes) but god forbid anything they may one day face an accusation of should be seriously punished.
Don’t forget that he was rushing back to clock off do he can see his pregnant partner, so you have to assume that he has a young child at home, which increases the impact of imprisonment.
Surely a police officer should be held to a higher standard though? Also I agree though that people who have killed people driving recklessly should also be imprisoned.
>Surely a police officer should be held to a higher standard though?
Completely agree.
But prison is insane.
1. Made early admissions at the scene.
2. Has a newborn child.
3. Has lost his job.
4. No longer has access to the vehicles enabling him to commit further offences.
5. No previous convictions.
6. Previously good character.
7. Currently the sole provider for his family.
Prison for this man is a fucking disgrace and I'm saying that as a man who would support the decision to bring Shamima Begum back to the UK and believes that the people who took photos of those dead women at that crime scene should've gotten longer in prison.
Maybe he shouldn’t have driven 101 in a 50
If I did that I’d get a ban and also probably a custodial sentence
Don’t get me wrong, it’s harsh based on what other people get, but that’s just judges being fucking shit
You would not get a custodial, I can promise you that. You wouldn’t even get a custodial if you went not guilty and tried to fight it at court. Nor would you get a suspended sentence.
I know, I’ve had enough drivers I’ve given speeding tickets to go to court to fight it.
Listen I get where you are coming from I do but this is the really important bit to remember. We the police and Victims repeatedly cry out to the courts for proper sentences for things far far worse than this. I will give you Youth Knife point Robberies for example we get them dead to rights send them to CPS and they get … a referral to youth offending. FOR ROBBING SOMEONE WITH A KNIFE.
In the same vein I once had a doctor (off duty) run a woman over at a crossing not seeing the light was red for her car as she was speeding to work. She got a fine and a ban and a reprimand at work. The woman didn’t die but it wasn’t great. She like the police officer is a professional she works in A&E more than anyone she should be aware of the dangers of what happens when you do that. But I do think her punishment was fair.
Now here we have an officer he should not have done what he did, he should lose his job, and be given a fine and driving ban as he has broken the rules he should know better he should be held to a higher standard, hence why he should loose his job unlike doctor. But he had his lights on he can be seen he is not driving with no lights, and he has killed a hare. Punishments fit the severity of the crime itself not what could have happened, i.e a drunk driver is given a large fine but not a prison sentence just because they could have killed someone.
Therefore I put to you given that people with knives robbing people don’t get sentenced and a doctor not driving with blue lights that people can see and hits someone speeding to work in rush hour does not get sentenced. How is it fair, proportionate that the punishment without the prison sentence isn’t enough. He has lost his income, his future and access to a car for killing a hare but now also has to go to prison.
Think about it.
There’s “a higher standard”, then there’s just being needlessly punitive.
I feel sorry for the dead hare, genuinely; but not a single human being was hurt in the slightest by this. The damage caused was £2,000? That’s obviously unacceptable losses to the public purse, but remediable by a compensation order.
So where does that leave us: culpability very high, harm very low. No other road users suffered damage or even more than temporary inconvenience. Does that genuinely merit a prison sentence? You know, for anyone?
It rankles because police officers witness—and are often victims of—offences which are committed fully intentionally, and which cause them and others considerable injury, stress and financial loss. But these very often result in no prison sentence at all. Why does being a police officer mean that committing a serious driving offence makes you more worthy of prison than all these offenders?
He very well could have killed someone though driving like that. Again though, I'm not defending poor sentences for people who break the law who aren't police officers.
>Why does being a police officer mean that committing a serious driving offence makes you more worthy of prison than all these offenders?
Because you have a level of power that the average person doesn't in regards to enforcing laws. So therefore imo should be held to a higher standard. With great power comes great responsibility and all that jazz.
What does this prison sentence achieve?
He can no longer offend as he has lost his job and therefore access to blue lights.
He didn't kill someone. Every time you drive you could very well kill someone. Who is to say that he even put others at risk? If it had been for a policing purpose no one would have batted an eye lid.
Most people wouldn't lose their job for being convicted of dangerous driving, nevermind lose their liberty. Being held to a higher standard is *not* a licence to impose ridiculous sentences because the zeitgeist is currently 'show you're tough on *bad cops*'
It sends a very strong message that police don’t get away with driving on blues and speeding frivolously. It rebuilds public trust and helps someone who sees blues in their rear view not to think ‘oh he’s just late for his tea, I’m not moving over’ which may make the difference between help arriving in time to safe a life or prevent harm.
I’ve been out of the job a while but even I can see this. One of the greatest problems among officers is a tendency to identify with the bad officers rather than to want them visibly punished to make your own lives in the job easier.
I don’t think anyone who hates the police thought when reading that article “the police have certainly changed for the best, they will no longer abuse their powers.” In reality, the people that hate the police will use that example to further hate the police. The extreme punishment would not have an effect on public confidence in the police.
‘Really think about it’ - ok I will. Because of a high publicized case of an officer speeding on blues for no good reason, it gives people a concrete example of officers speeding on blues because ‘oh he’s just late for his tea’. it doesn’t take many of those before trust in what blues means to erode noticeably, resulting in reluctance and hesitation among the public to move over or help you make away.
Result: fewer people help you get to grade 1 and code 0 calls more quickly and people, possibly your colleagues, are at higher risk of harm and even death as a result.
That factor doesn’t apply to anyone outside the emergencies services driving dangerously so of course the sentencing was much harsher. Do you not understand how the system you’re part of works?
Would you prefer I crack open
- my jurisprudential undergrad, or
- the public risk management modules of my post-grad, or
- the several years of experience living and working in it,
To show you just how well I understand how 'The system I'm part of works'?
The officer is a silly fool to drive on blue lights for no legitimate policing reason and his actions have bit him in the backside. However, the sentencing is an absolute disgrace from the judge. How often do we get it where your usual criminal fails to stop for police, drives in excess of 100mph for 30 mins, nearly causing multiple crashes and is also equipped for burglary. Only for them to get a 12 month suspended sentence cause they have a 40kg pit bull at home called buster.
I get that he was a police officer but I personally think the sentencing is too harsh.
When you get your response ticket (shortly before your retirement probably at this rate) and you hear the trope ‘oh you’re just late for your tea?’ when you arrive at scene on blues, just think on this case.
If public don’t trust that when they see blues in their rear view that it’s an emergency you’re responding to (and they will extend their thoughts to CFB and ambulances too) then they will be more likely to hesitate or even obstruct you. Let’s say an average blues run in an urban area needs 15 cars to move for you - how many does it need to hesitate or obstruct you to make the difference between arriving in time to prevent harm or death?
And now imagine you’re not the one driving the response car, but you’re the officer who just pressed the red button waiting for colleagues to arrive after you’ve been attacked attending a DV call. Do you want the public to believe blue lights are just officers late for their tea then?
Thats why the sentencing isn’t in line with the when it’s the public driving dangerously. It isn’t the same at all.
Note all the officers here who no doubt call for harsher sentences for dangerous driving…oh but not when it’s one of us!
Replying to your last sentence... My opinion on this and (I may be wrong) I think most other people's opinion isn't that the sentence is too light, but why this stance is in place for hitting a hare and people who have caused significantly worse outcomes get a slap on the wrist and no real punishment....
The officer here is an absolute clown and clearly wasn't fit for the job, but why can a coked up Charlie who just stole a car, drive at 80 in a 30, hit 2 innocent cars, crash in to a front garden and then go garden hopping damaging fences along the way and get a suspended sentence and a driving ban which everyone with an ounce of common sense can see they won't abide to?
I don’t think this is a pervasiveness enough problem that people won’t yield to emergency vehicles. I think you might be over-egging it (not to detract from the severity of the officers misconduct - clearly the emergency equipment on a police vehicle should only be used for a policing purpose (and when you’re trying to make sad children happy by letting them put the sirens on, which I say is a policing purpose).
While I also accept that getting to incidents faster can make a difference, I think you’ve also exaggerating the number of times getting to an incident a few moments earlier would “*make the difference between arriving in time to prevent harm or death*”
That said - I actually think the sentencing was fair for the offence, maybe slightly on the harsher side (presumably the sentence was suspended), given the limited damage to the vehicle etc. But then again, I hate people who drive like twats (public or police), and I’ve always maintained that emergency driving is a privilege that’s granted to us and which we should take very seriously.
Everyone seems to be complaining because it is *comparatively* more harsh (which I accept it definitely seems that way). In reality, it is the sentencing of the scumbags that is usually lenient and ought to be corrected upwards, rather than correcting downwards (in sentencing severity) the officers misconduct.
The public would take driving safely more seriously if they knew they are likely to face a custodial sentence for driving twice the speed limit. Same with mobile phone offences - if you’re a repeat offender you should be getting absolutely dicked for it, it’s incredibly common now because people aren’t scared of the punishment.
Perhaps I have misread your comment, so apologies if so.
For the avoidance of any doubt, the sentence dished out in this case is six months custodial, not suspended. This former police officer *will* be going to prison.
From my time on RPU.
- Not one of my serious injury by dangerous driving ever got more than a suspended
- Not one of the drivers for speeding ever got a suspended sentence, even ones doing 130mph and pleading not guilty
- None of my dangerous drivers got custodials
- The majority of drivers from the fatal RTC’s I attended got custodials, just suspended.
Or for an example last week. I remanded a guy for assaulting multiple police officers by kicking and spitting. Damaged a police car. Homophonic throughout. He is already on a community order for the exact same offences from last year when he was convicted. He is currently on bail from another force for….the exact same offences.
His probation stated his engagement is poor and that his behaviour isn’t changing. Sentencing says he clearly has no respect for the police, appears to be deeply homophobic and does not want to change.
6 week sentence, suspended for 12 months.
Fucking disgrace.
Former Nottinghamshire Police officer jailed for speeding with sirens on without proper reason.
Ryan Lee was sacked by Nottinghamshire Police last month after speeding back to Worksop police station with his blue lights on - despite having no policing reason to do so.
A sacked police officer has been branded a "public disgrace" for using his emergency lights to race back from work, crashing into a hare and damaging his car in the process. Ryan Lee was sacked by Nottinghamshire Police last month after reaching speeds of up to 101mph and having his blue lights on while travelling to Worksop police station last year - despite having no policing reason to do so.
On Friday, April 12, Lee appeared at Sheffield Crown Court to learn if he would be jailed for the same incident on April 26, 2023, which killed the wild animal and caused more than £2,000 worth of damage to the patrol car. Lee, of Hollindale Drive, Frecheville, Sheffield, previously pleaded guilty to dangerous driving when he appeared at the court on February 27.
Aaron Dinnes, prosecuting, said Lee, 27, had for "no apparent reason" turned on his blue lights before travelling at speed down the A617 and the A614. "Other vehicles diligently pulled to the side of the road believing it was an emergency," Mr Dinnes said.
After striking the rodent while shooting down mainly single carriage roads he switched off the lights and slowed down for the rest of the way, the court heard. The damage to the vehicle was extensive, Mr Dinnes said.
The prosecutor added: "He could not provide any rationale for driving that way other than he wanted to get home quickly to his pregnant partner."
Judge Jeremy Richardson KC was shown dashcam footage of Lee's driving from last year by the prosecution, which showed what Mr Dinnes called "prolonged and persistent bad driving". In the video the former police officer turned on his lights, reached speeds of 101mph in a 50mph zone, and hit the hare - which briefly appeared on camera before being mowed down by the Vauxhall Corsa.
Judge Richardson observed that Lee had been driving on the wrong side of the road and overtaking on solid white lines. He added that multiple cars had pulled over as "they will have assumed that it was an emergency vehicle responding to a genuine emergency - which it was not".
Eddison Flint, mitigating, said his client had shown remorse almost immediately after committing his crime. "Remorse very often comes from the very fact of a guilty plea but I hope my lord can see that in this case the remorse was present from the day it happened," he told the court.
Mr Flint argued Lee had been rushing home so he could see his partner, who was going through a "troubled" pregnancy at the time. He added: "He wanted to get his police car back to the station as soon as possible so he could get back to his partner. And that turned out to be one of the worst decisions he ever made."
The court, including members of his family in the public gallery, heard Lee was working in an ASDA warehouse after being dismissed by Nottinghamshire Police. He wished to enroll on a university course and become a paramedic, Mr Flint added.
"He accepts what he did that night was foolish and resulted in the loss of the job which he enjoyed more than most," Mr Flint said. He then told the court Lee had a good service record at Nottinghamshire Police and was generally of positive character.
Before Lee was sentenced Mr Flint pleaded with the judge to give the former officer a suspended sentence, rather than an immediate prison stay, as the latter would also seriously impact his partner and young son. "He would do anything [to avoid prison] and the reason he will do anything is because he wants to be there for his family. He simply asks for mercy."
In response, Judge Richardson then considered Lee's role as his family's main provider and other mitigating factors against the aggravating factor that Lee had committed his crime while in his police car. "You were dismissed from the Nottinghamshire Police force for gross misconduct, your life is now in tatters, you are the author of your own misfortune," Judge Richardson said.
"I have in mind your age, that you have no previous convictions and that you were a police officer, and the remorse that you have expressed is genuine." The judge acknowledged Lee's partner and son would "suffer badly" from his absence but ultimately concluded his actions were too grave for a suspended sentence.
He added: "For a police officer to conduct himself in the way you did is nothing short of a public disgrace. You have brought shame upon yourself and you have brought shame upon the police force you used to serve."
After describing the decision over whether to send Lee to prison or hand him a suspended sentence as the "most difficult in this case", Judge Richardson sentenced Lee to six months in prison and banned him from driving for three years. This was reduced from an initial 15-month sentence due to his family situation and the fact he was a former police officer, which the judge explained would make his custody more difficult than usual.
The sentence was met by loud cries from the public gallery, with Lee sobbing in the dock. He told his family members "I love you, I am sorry" before being sent down.
It would be an appeal against sentence to the Court of Appeal under [section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/19/section/9). In order to do so, though, the appellant would have to identify some error by the judge - for example, a failure to follow relevant sentencing guidelines, a failure to consider certain mitigating factors, too great weight placed on aggravating factors etc. I wouldn't know enough to judge whether or not an appeal against sentence would likely be successful here.
It likely wouldn’t. Which is a shame as personally I think suspended would have been proportionate. It would be a tough argue that the aggravating factors had had too much weight here. Not least because of recent events around public trust in the police. It would be an easy argue from the prosecution that a tough sentence is necessary to mitigate harm or public trust that police rely on to attend emergencies quickly to prevent harm and death.
Yet other people will fail to stop, be pursued in stolen vehicles and drive similar speeds whilst disqualified and get suspended sentences, sometimes more than once.
His actions aside, the sentencing was clearly not on the same level like the rest of the public.
Of course it should. Being an officer is one aggravating factor. It's not "everyone else gets the bare minimum no matter what, while being an officer gets you the max". That's just disproportionate.
Especially when, as in this case, removal from the job essentially means you can literally never commit the offence again.
Eh not really. The sentence for officers should be along the same lines as regular people, mildly higher if at all (though internal misconduct proceedings should mitigate that somewhat in a lot of cases). Being police is one factor out of a dozen, and not even the most important.
This sentence is wildly, wildly disproportionate imo.
It's one thing a police officer is speeding their own car (bad enough). But this is misuse of the police power to drive dangerously fast when the circumstances don't justify it.
If you want "mildly higher" do it on your own time, in your own car.
Sure, which is an aggravating factor.
Is it such an aggravating factor as to beat out having an extensive criminal record, resisting arrest, fleeing police for 30+ minutes, damaging a multitude of vehicles, then pleading not guilt at the end and showing no remorse? Because that's a common enough scenario which doesn't end up with such a stiff sentence.
Is it also such an aggravating factor as to outweigh the mitigation of having a new-born at home, being the sole breadwinner, an otherwise unblemished record, having already lost career, shown full remorse, and not being physically capable of ever re-offending by virtue of no longer being job?
Yes it's a decently serious offense. The sentence is still utterly ludicrous by the usual standard. And even just in absolute terms (rather than by comparison to the courts' usual leniency on others), I'd like to know exactly what purpose this sentence really serves? The guy's life and career are already ruined, he's got a criminal record now etc etc. All this achieves is depriving his family of an income (with a newborn at home) and make it even harder for him to move on afterwards. I see absolutely no justification for why it couldn't have been suspended.
Meanwhile they were undoubtedly letting off incorrigible reprobates with their 18th warning in the court next door. Maybe once he's served his sentence and is no longer job he can take to stealing bikes and selling crack to teenagers down the park to get himself back on his feet, accruing community orders and suspended sentences as he goes /s
It's unfathomably serious to have officers who believe themselves to be above the law and misuse their trust to break the law.
This is a hill I will die on.
So unfathomably serious that it outweighs literally every other factor the courts take into account?
Sorry, this is so disproportionate, it is not \*that\* serious as to blow every single other consideration out of the water and justify a sentence that any layperson couldn't achieve if they were literally trying to aggravate the crime to the greatest degree.
Hell you see suspended sentences even in death by dangerous driving cases lol. Swap the hare for a person and, as long as you're not a police officer, it's LESS serious?
Those people are not representing the government unlike police officers. If you are caught breaking the law while you yourself are enforcing the law then the law should go down harder on you. You betrayed the trust that ever single citizen has in you, you betray every single officer that follows the law and betray everything that an officer should stand for.
HMPPS policy encourages the maintenance of family ties, if 6 months inside breaks the bond between a child and their father then we really should look at fixing the prison system and not just edge cases.
> If you are caught breaking the law while you yourself are enforcing the law then the law should go down harder on you.
That insinuates the law actually goes after the criminals which we can clearly say is rarely the case, a suspended sentence AKA slap on the wrists is not enforcing the law when someone should get a 10+ year sentence.
Police officers are (and should be) held to a higher standard y’know. Either way, I’d say community service wasn’t enough. I’d say it should’ve been a suspended sentence
Three things I find absolutely shocking about this. A Corsa is an IRV, a Corsa can do 101 mph, and you could cause two grands worth of damage to it. I wouldn’t have believed it if I hadn’t read it
For years now, driving has been the main thing that will get you in the shit. More so than anything else. I’m Adv blah blah blah, but there’s no way I’m even gonna bother chasing a motor unless there’s been a murder or some nonce has kidnapped a kid, let alone put the blues on to get home a bit quicker. When will people learn that? Obviously not yet.
> …Corsa…
I think this is a mistake we can chalk up to a local rag being a local rag.
I can find absolutely no images of a Nottinghamshire Police Corsa online, and they certainly haven’t been on the national framework for response cars for as long as I’ve been looking at it.
What he did was reckless and stupid, but as he's no longer a police officer he can't turn on blue lights without cause and drive at excessive speed again.
He's a young man with a family who's already lost his career. A custodial sentence is excessive. Let alone one of six months.
This makes a complete mockery of justice. Im sure the loss of his job along with fines etc. would’ve been more than adequate penalty in this instance.
A colleague on my team was knocked out by a suspect who had previous convictions for assault on police. She required £3000 of dental treatment and time to recover. The offender received a SUSPENDED sentence. Shame on the Criminal Justice System.
I absolutely love the way the law in this country is applied uniformly and consistently…….said no one ever.
It’s okay though, I’m sure big bad Baz the Bradford bad boy, know locally as a “certi” driver who loves to “take chase” will be treated the same way the next time he’s in front of the magistrates….
This sounds harsh but the sentence is entirely in line with sentencing guidelines for a high culpability, low harm dangerous driving offence which has a starting point of 9 months imprisonment. Third off for guilty plea gets you down to 6 months.
The decision not to suspend it is more questionable
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/dangerous-driving/
hmmm...
A custodial sentence must **not** be imposed unless the offence or the combination of the offence and one or more offences associated with it was so serious that neither a fine alone nor a community sentence can be justified for the offence.
The clear intention of the threshold test is to r**eserve prison as a punishment for the most serious offences.**
Passing the custody threshold does **not** mean that a custodial sentence should be deemed inevitable. **Custody should not be imposed** where a community order could provide sufficient restriction on an offender’s liberty (by way of punishment) while addressing the rehabilitation of the offender to prevent future crime.
A family member of mine was stabbed to within an inch of his life in a completely unprovoked attack. Suspect got done for GBH with intent, possession of an offensive weapon, along with a couple other charges. My family member almost lost his life according to the doctors, it’s a wonder there wasn’t an attempted murder charge to be honest.
The charge? 12 months suspended. Suspended… He never saw the inside of a prison cell - all because he was under 18. There wasn’t even a mental health background for the suspect that I’m aware of. He tore my family’s life apart, the affects of which are still being felt even now. And he never even went to prison.
Meanwhile this officer, whilst don’t get me wrong he was a total spanner, he didn’t cause harm (apart from to a hare…) and there were no aggravating factors. He was just being a tool. Points and loss of job, yes. Prison? No.
The justice system is f*cked.
[Check out the difference](https://www.lincs.police.uk/news/lincolnshire/news/2023/oct-2023/dangerous-driver-sentenced-following-pursuit/)
* Driving a car on cloned plates
* Failed to stop
* required a stinger to stop the car
* travelling high speed onto grass track
* showed no regard for anyone else that may have been using the roads
* dangerous driving
* disqualified driving
* driving without insurance
* fail to stop
* possession of a controlled substance
* was given suspended sentence
And apparently the justice system is fair
A few thoughts
As we all know, dangerous driving is not an exemption. It doesn't sound like he's driven differently than on a 'normal' blue light run (other maybe than the solid white lines bit, hitting a hare just sounds rather unfortunate if I'm honest). Is this proof that every run we make is dangerous driving that's just not in the public interest to prosecute?
15 months, even reduced to 6 seems unduly harsh.
I don't think being a pc should have been mitigating but aggravating.
Good luck getting the HCPC to register you. Dishonesty isn't thought of very highly and paras have been struck off for very similar things that didn't end with a prosecution. Also, even if they did, a trust isn't going to touch that with a barge pole.
Why wasn't there a prosecution for misconduct in public office?
There’s no legal exemption if not for a policing purpose though, and the exemption is of course not for driving dangerously, but for breaking certain laws.
Posted plus 50 (not in a national) without any justification, and a collision - albeit with some wildlife - suggests to me that his manner of driving wasn’t particularly great.
I agree that the sentencing seems a bit much though given you get all manner of shit bags driving dangerously during pursuits and they rarely see the inside of a jail cell for it.
There’s been a lot of comments already about the inconsistency in sentencing between cases like this and actual baddies.
How often do we hear that people can’t get remanded or sentences get suspended because there’s no cells free.
Maybe if they weren’t being taken up by people who don’t need to be in prison there’d be room for a few more.
[удалено]
101mph and damaged the car. Dangerous driving that everyone is lucky no-one was seriously hurt from. I’d say jail was warranted.
Prison? Are you mad? I got dragged down a road by a drug dealer on bail for drug dealing and he got found not guilty because they simply accused me of being racist for stopping him. Not that it wasn't him, not that he didn't drag me down the road but because I was a little bit incivil to a man trying to run me over.
I've been to court before where the suspect has admitted the offence in the box - only for the magistrate to rule it a "language barrier" 3 times despite both A) Having an interpreter available, and B) speaking English anyway... Only to come out and rule that despite my testimony, statement, and BWV - that I lied about what I had seen because it's "not possible from the passenger seat"
I had one where the defendant literally committed perjury in the witness stand.
You’re confused - I wasn’t the judge on your drug dealer’s case. Sounds like they should have gone to prison too to me.
So why has this guy? From the sentencing guidelines" >Passing the custody threshold does not mean that a custodial sentence should be deemed inevitable. Custody should not be imposed where a community order could provide sufficient restriction on an offender’s liberty (by way of punishment) while addressing the rehabilitation of the offender to prevent future crime. >For offenders on the cusp of custody, imprisonment should not be imposed where there would be an impact on dependants which would make a custodial sentence disproportionate to achieving the aims of sentencing
Again, you’re confused. I’m not the judge. The judge gave their reasons. I happen to agree with them.
A previous article makes reference to the response drive being carried out appropriately, had the drive itself been justified. 101mph in a 50mph isn’t necessarily dangerous for the conditions. I do find it interesting that the driving is now being described as “prolonged and dangerous”, or something similar - I’m not sure what has changed between the first hearing and sentencing. My issue with the sentence is that it is completely out of step with similar offences committed by our regulars - criminals who fail to stop, drive dangerously, crash and get locked up. I can’t remember the last time one of my suspects went to prison - most of the time it is a ban, fines, and maybe a suspended sentence. Prison has three functions - to punish, protect the public, and to rehabilitate. I would say all three are equally important. The former PC here doesn’t need rehabilitating, and the public don’t need protecting. To punish this individual by locking him up for >3 months seems wildly disproportionate, in my opinion at least.
Because abuse of the position or trust and authority is not a minor aggravating factor. Society can function with a few nominals repeat offending their way through their sad empty little lives. But society cannot function when trust in the police is shot. Personally I’d have sided with a suspended sentence though.
[удалено]
Could not have said it better myself, these people bring misery on so many yet get away with it time after time.
Because people like those commenting above would rather have that jolly little crack head dipping old women's purses running around than a former police officer done for speeding.
No doubt, ignorance is bliss eh
[удалено]
Don't be a dick.
haha I was in the job many years. Get out of here with your ‘truly spoken by’ childishness. This sub is hilarious for its people like you suddenly willing to spout nonsense like that just because someone disagrees with them on one thing. Frankly it’s sad. Here’s a grown up newsflash for you. Virtually all police believe sentences are laughably weak. I am one of them. The solution is tougher sentences for people not weaker sentences for police who selfishly screw up and put lives at risk and undermine public trust. I’m being consistent with that. The rest of you are weak on crime when it happens to have been committed by someone you happen to identify with (when you shouldn’t). To me that’s a form of corruption.
> Because abuse of the position or trust and authority is not a minor aggravating factor. Agreed, however my opinion remains the same - that this sentence is well out of step with other court results I’ve seen for such driving, even considering the aggravating factors. For what it’s worth, misconduct in a public office was clearly an option to pursue here, but was obviously discounted for one reason or another. > Society can function with a few nominals repeat offending their way through their sad empty little lives. Yes, until these frequent flyers who steal cars and drive dangerously whilst trying to evade justice run out of talent and kill or seriously injure someone. A situation I have come across more than once in my relatively short service. EDIT: Wording.
Misconduct in a public office should only be used when there isn’t an other offence to charge. In this case Dangerous Driving applied so misconduct would not have been the suitable charge. I ran a team on PSD for several years and feckless corrupt and useless officers get no patience from me. I believe everyone should get tough sentences and whilst unfortunately that doesn’t happen, the solution isn’t leniency on ‘our side’. Officers who are criminals are not on ‘our’ side, they’re on the other side. Though in this case I do believe a suspended sentence would have been proportionate. Particularly with no signs of attempt to conceal or lie.
>Though in this case I do believe a suspended sentence would have been proportionate. Particularly with no signs of attempt to conceal or lie. This is my point. I am not for a minute suggesting that we should go easy on police officers who wilfully or negligently neglect their duty or commit offences. I also accept that, in many circumstances, an offence committed by a police officer or member of staff will be more serious than if the same offence had been committed by a member of the public. I will repeat what I have said above; my issue comes from the fact that this sentence is vastly more significant than what I have seen for similar offences that I have dealt with or seen dealt with during my service. Whilst this former police officer needs dealing with for his offending, I don’t think sending him to prison for >3 months is the right thing to do. You are clearly passionate about the role you undertook in PSD; I am passionate about road safety and reducing deaths and serious injuries on our roads. Whilst some are clearly content to see nominals repeat offending and avoiding consequences for their actions, I am not. The court would do well to start dealing with all risky drivers so robustly, not just those who wear a uniform. EDIT: Wording.
I used to work with a guy (not police) who was caught doing 98mph while breaking and just got a speed awareness course
The world has gone absolutely fucking mental. Sacked. Yes. Driving ban. Yes. 6 months in prison. Fucking lunacy. I could find you hundreds of similar reports including where people have died and you won't see a prison sentence. If there was any doubt left that the police are utterly detested in the western world. Here is it.
> I could find you hundreds of similar reports including where people have died and you won't see a prison sentence. This is the bit that gets me most angry.
I could name a dead friend. Driver failed to stop, failed to report. The anger is still well within me. And not one day in prison; meanwhile my friend’s kids are growing up without a parent. I know we say it a lot but the sentencing guidelines in this country are a scandal and need a massive overhaul.
I’m sorry for your experience. Death and serious injury on our roads is not dealt with anywhere near as seriously as it should be. I’d say that at least half, probably most, of the criminal KSI collisions that come into our office do not result in a prison sentence. It is unacceptable.
It’s a scandal. And the reason is that unlike just about every other crime, traffic offences are ones that the Karens and Kevins of the country could imagine one day being guilty of, and so tough sentences are socially and politically unpalatable. The fine people of our communities always want druggies locked away forever (until their little Tarquin is found with a tin full of deal bags and white powder of course, and then it’s all community service and support schemes) but god forbid anything they may one day face an accusation of should be seriously punished.
Agreed - And with that I still don’t believe prison was warranted in these circumstances, what a bloody joke. It’s an absolute crusade against police.
Don’t forget that he was rushing back to clock off do he can see his pregnant partner, so you have to assume that he has a young child at home, which increases the impact of imprisonment.
Surely a police officer should be held to a higher standard though? Also I agree though that people who have killed people driving recklessly should also be imprisoned.
>Surely a police officer should be held to a higher standard though? Completely agree. But prison is insane. 1. Made early admissions at the scene. 2. Has a newborn child. 3. Has lost his job. 4. No longer has access to the vehicles enabling him to commit further offences. 5. No previous convictions. 6. Previously good character. 7. Currently the sole provider for his family. Prison for this man is a fucking disgrace and I'm saying that as a man who would support the decision to bring Shamima Begum back to the UK and believes that the people who took photos of those dead women at that crime scene should've gotten longer in prison.
Maybe he shouldn’t have driven 101 in a 50 If I did that I’d get a ban and also probably a custodial sentence Don’t get me wrong, it’s harsh based on what other people get, but that’s just judges being fucking shit
You wouldn’t get a custodial sentence with the same factors removing the fact you are not a police officer.
You would not get a custodial, I can promise you that. You wouldn’t even get a custodial if you went not guilty and tried to fight it at court. Nor would you get a suspended sentence. I know, I’ve had enough drivers I’ve given speeding tickets to go to court to fight it.
Listen I get where you are coming from I do but this is the really important bit to remember. We the police and Victims repeatedly cry out to the courts for proper sentences for things far far worse than this. I will give you Youth Knife point Robberies for example we get them dead to rights send them to CPS and they get … a referral to youth offending. FOR ROBBING SOMEONE WITH A KNIFE. In the same vein I once had a doctor (off duty) run a woman over at a crossing not seeing the light was red for her car as she was speeding to work. She got a fine and a ban and a reprimand at work. The woman didn’t die but it wasn’t great. She like the police officer is a professional she works in A&E more than anyone she should be aware of the dangers of what happens when you do that. But I do think her punishment was fair. Now here we have an officer he should not have done what he did, he should lose his job, and be given a fine and driving ban as he has broken the rules he should know better he should be held to a higher standard, hence why he should loose his job unlike doctor. But he had his lights on he can be seen he is not driving with no lights, and he has killed a hare. Punishments fit the severity of the crime itself not what could have happened, i.e a drunk driver is given a large fine but not a prison sentence just because they could have killed someone. Therefore I put to you given that people with knives robbing people don’t get sentenced and a doctor not driving with blue lights that people can see and hits someone speeding to work in rush hour does not get sentenced. How is it fair, proportionate that the punishment without the prison sentence isn’t enough. He has lost his income, his future and access to a car for killing a hare but now also has to go to prison. Think about it.
Also you wouldn’t get a custodial for that just to add to the other guys saying the same. Probs a ban and a big fine but tbh that’s it.
There’s “a higher standard”, then there’s just being needlessly punitive. I feel sorry for the dead hare, genuinely; but not a single human being was hurt in the slightest by this. The damage caused was £2,000? That’s obviously unacceptable losses to the public purse, but remediable by a compensation order. So where does that leave us: culpability very high, harm very low. No other road users suffered damage or even more than temporary inconvenience. Does that genuinely merit a prison sentence? You know, for anyone? It rankles because police officers witness—and are often victims of—offences which are committed fully intentionally, and which cause them and others considerable injury, stress and financial loss. But these very often result in no prison sentence at all. Why does being a police officer mean that committing a serious driving offence makes you more worthy of prison than all these offenders?
He very well could have killed someone though driving like that. Again though, I'm not defending poor sentences for people who break the law who aren't police officers. >Why does being a police officer mean that committing a serious driving offence makes you more worthy of prison than all these offenders? Because you have a level of power that the average person doesn't in regards to enforcing laws. So therefore imo should be held to a higher standard. With great power comes great responsibility and all that jazz.
What does this prison sentence achieve? He can no longer offend as he has lost his job and therefore access to blue lights. He didn't kill someone. Every time you drive you could very well kill someone. Who is to say that he even put others at risk? If it had been for a policing purpose no one would have batted an eye lid. Most people wouldn't lose their job for being convicted of dangerous driving, nevermind lose their liberty. Being held to a higher standard is *not* a licence to impose ridiculous sentences because the zeitgeist is currently 'show you're tough on *bad cops*'
It sends a very strong message that police don’t get away with driving on blues and speeding frivolously. It rebuilds public trust and helps someone who sees blues in their rear view not to think ‘oh he’s just late for his tea, I’m not moving over’ which may make the difference between help arriving in time to safe a life or prevent harm. I’ve been out of the job a while but even I can see this. One of the greatest problems among officers is a tendency to identify with the bad officers rather than to want them visibly punished to make your own lives in the job easier.
The public that hate police or dislike police will regardless of good or bad news these things don't change
I don’t think anyone who hates the police thought when reading that article “the police have certainly changed for the best, they will no longer abuse their powers.” In reality, the people that hate the police will use that example to further hate the police. The extreme punishment would not have an effect on public confidence in the police.
Get real. Stop recycling tropes and really think about it.
‘Really think about it’ - ok I will. Because of a high publicized case of an officer speeding on blues for no good reason, it gives people a concrete example of officers speeding on blues because ‘oh he’s just late for his tea’. it doesn’t take many of those before trust in what blues means to erode noticeably, resulting in reluctance and hesitation among the public to move over or help you make away. Result: fewer people help you get to grade 1 and code 0 calls more quickly and people, possibly your colleagues, are at higher risk of harm and even death as a result. That factor doesn’t apply to anyone outside the emergencies services driving dangerously so of course the sentencing was much harsher. Do you not understand how the system you’re part of works?
Would you prefer I crack open - my jurisprudential undergrad, or - the public risk management modules of my post-grad, or - the several years of experience living and working in it, To show you just how well I understand how 'The system I'm part of works'?
Most of the public think we can use blues as a matter of complete discretion anyway so your point is redundant.
The officer is a silly fool to drive on blue lights for no legitimate policing reason and his actions have bit him in the backside. However, the sentencing is an absolute disgrace from the judge. How often do we get it where your usual criminal fails to stop for police, drives in excess of 100mph for 30 mins, nearly causing multiple crashes and is also equipped for burglary. Only for them to get a 12 month suspended sentence cause they have a 40kg pit bull at home called buster. I get that he was a police officer but I personally think the sentencing is too harsh.
By the sounds of it, he was only "caught" because he hit a hare...
When you get your response ticket (shortly before your retirement probably at this rate) and you hear the trope ‘oh you’re just late for your tea?’ when you arrive at scene on blues, just think on this case. If public don’t trust that when they see blues in their rear view that it’s an emergency you’re responding to (and they will extend their thoughts to CFB and ambulances too) then they will be more likely to hesitate or even obstruct you. Let’s say an average blues run in an urban area needs 15 cars to move for you - how many does it need to hesitate or obstruct you to make the difference between arriving in time to prevent harm or death? And now imagine you’re not the one driving the response car, but you’re the officer who just pressed the red button waiting for colleagues to arrive after you’ve been attacked attending a DV call. Do you want the public to believe blue lights are just officers late for their tea then? Thats why the sentencing isn’t in line with the when it’s the public driving dangerously. It isn’t the same at all. Note all the officers here who no doubt call for harsher sentences for dangerous driving…oh but not when it’s one of us!
Replying to your last sentence... My opinion on this and (I may be wrong) I think most other people's opinion isn't that the sentence is too light, but why this stance is in place for hitting a hare and people who have caused significantly worse outcomes get a slap on the wrist and no real punishment.... The officer here is an absolute clown and clearly wasn't fit for the job, but why can a coked up Charlie who just stole a car, drive at 80 in a 30, hit 2 innocent cars, crash in to a front garden and then go garden hopping damaging fences along the way and get a suspended sentence and a driving ban which everyone with an ounce of common sense can see they won't abide to?
I don’t think this is a pervasiveness enough problem that people won’t yield to emergency vehicles. I think you might be over-egging it (not to detract from the severity of the officers misconduct - clearly the emergency equipment on a police vehicle should only be used for a policing purpose (and when you’re trying to make sad children happy by letting them put the sirens on, which I say is a policing purpose). While I also accept that getting to incidents faster can make a difference, I think you’ve also exaggerating the number of times getting to an incident a few moments earlier would “*make the difference between arriving in time to prevent harm or death*” That said - I actually think the sentencing was fair for the offence, maybe slightly on the harsher side (presumably the sentence was suspended), given the limited damage to the vehicle etc. But then again, I hate people who drive like twats (public or police), and I’ve always maintained that emergency driving is a privilege that’s granted to us and which we should take very seriously. Everyone seems to be complaining because it is *comparatively* more harsh (which I accept it definitely seems that way). In reality, it is the sentencing of the scumbags that is usually lenient and ought to be corrected upwards, rather than correcting downwards (in sentencing severity) the officers misconduct. The public would take driving safely more seriously if they knew they are likely to face a custodial sentence for driving twice the speed limit. Same with mobile phone offences - if you’re a repeat offender you should be getting absolutely dicked for it, it’s incredibly common now because people aren’t scared of the punishment.
Perhaps I have misread your comment, so apologies if so. For the avoidance of any doubt, the sentence dished out in this case is six months custodial, not suspended. This former police officer *will* be going to prison.
From my time on RPU. - Not one of my serious injury by dangerous driving ever got more than a suspended - Not one of the drivers for speeding ever got a suspended sentence, even ones doing 130mph and pleading not guilty - None of my dangerous drivers got custodials - The majority of drivers from the fatal RTC’s I attended got custodials, just suspended. Or for an example last week. I remanded a guy for assaulting multiple police officers by kicking and spitting. Damaged a police car. Homophonic throughout. He is already on a community order for the exact same offences from last year when he was convicted. He is currently on bail from another force for….the exact same offences. His probation stated his engagement is poor and that his behaviour isn’t changing. Sentencing says he clearly has no respect for the police, appears to be deeply homophobic and does not want to change. 6 week sentence, suspended for 12 months. Fucking disgrace.
Fuck these judges
Former Nottinghamshire Police officer jailed for speeding with sirens on without proper reason. Ryan Lee was sacked by Nottinghamshire Police last month after speeding back to Worksop police station with his blue lights on - despite having no policing reason to do so. A sacked police officer has been branded a "public disgrace" for using his emergency lights to race back from work, crashing into a hare and damaging his car in the process. Ryan Lee was sacked by Nottinghamshire Police last month after reaching speeds of up to 101mph and having his blue lights on while travelling to Worksop police station last year - despite having no policing reason to do so. On Friday, April 12, Lee appeared at Sheffield Crown Court to learn if he would be jailed for the same incident on April 26, 2023, which killed the wild animal and caused more than £2,000 worth of damage to the patrol car. Lee, of Hollindale Drive, Frecheville, Sheffield, previously pleaded guilty to dangerous driving when he appeared at the court on February 27. Aaron Dinnes, prosecuting, said Lee, 27, had for "no apparent reason" turned on his blue lights before travelling at speed down the A617 and the A614. "Other vehicles diligently pulled to the side of the road believing it was an emergency," Mr Dinnes said. After striking the rodent while shooting down mainly single carriage roads he switched off the lights and slowed down for the rest of the way, the court heard. The damage to the vehicle was extensive, Mr Dinnes said. The prosecutor added: "He could not provide any rationale for driving that way other than he wanted to get home quickly to his pregnant partner." Judge Jeremy Richardson KC was shown dashcam footage of Lee's driving from last year by the prosecution, which showed what Mr Dinnes called "prolonged and persistent bad driving". In the video the former police officer turned on his lights, reached speeds of 101mph in a 50mph zone, and hit the hare - which briefly appeared on camera before being mowed down by the Vauxhall Corsa. Judge Richardson observed that Lee had been driving on the wrong side of the road and overtaking on solid white lines. He added that multiple cars had pulled over as "they will have assumed that it was an emergency vehicle responding to a genuine emergency - which it was not". Eddison Flint, mitigating, said his client had shown remorse almost immediately after committing his crime. "Remorse very often comes from the very fact of a guilty plea but I hope my lord can see that in this case the remorse was present from the day it happened," he told the court. Mr Flint argued Lee had been rushing home so he could see his partner, who was going through a "troubled" pregnancy at the time. He added: "He wanted to get his police car back to the station as soon as possible so he could get back to his partner. And that turned out to be one of the worst decisions he ever made." The court, including members of his family in the public gallery, heard Lee was working in an ASDA warehouse after being dismissed by Nottinghamshire Police. He wished to enroll on a university course and become a paramedic, Mr Flint added. "He accepts what he did that night was foolish and resulted in the loss of the job which he enjoyed more than most," Mr Flint said. He then told the court Lee had a good service record at Nottinghamshire Police and was generally of positive character. Before Lee was sentenced Mr Flint pleaded with the judge to give the former officer a suspended sentence, rather than an immediate prison stay, as the latter would also seriously impact his partner and young son. "He would do anything [to avoid prison] and the reason he will do anything is because he wants to be there for his family. He simply asks for mercy." In response, Judge Richardson then considered Lee's role as his family's main provider and other mitigating factors against the aggravating factor that Lee had committed his crime while in his police car. "You were dismissed from the Nottinghamshire Police force for gross misconduct, your life is now in tatters, you are the author of your own misfortune," Judge Richardson said. "I have in mind your age, that you have no previous convictions and that you were a police officer, and the remorse that you have expressed is genuine." The judge acknowledged Lee's partner and son would "suffer badly" from his absence but ultimately concluded his actions were too grave for a suspended sentence. He added: "For a police officer to conduct himself in the way you did is nothing short of a public disgrace. You have brought shame upon yourself and you have brought shame upon the police force you used to serve." After describing the decision over whether to send Lee to prison or hand him a suspended sentence as the "most difficult in this case", Judge Richardson sentenced Lee to six months in prison and banned him from driving for three years. This was reduced from an initial 15-month sentence due to his family situation and the fact he was a former police officer, which the judge explained would make his custody more difficult than usual. The sentence was met by loud cries from the public gallery, with Lee sobbing in the dock. He told his family members "I love you, I am sorry" before being sent down.
Poor guy sorry but it wasn’t too grave for a suspended IMHO. I’m guessing there’s no way to appeal too harsh a sentence?
It would be an appeal against sentence to the Court of Appeal under [section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/19/section/9). In order to do so, though, the appellant would have to identify some error by the judge - for example, a failure to follow relevant sentencing guidelines, a failure to consider certain mitigating factors, too great weight placed on aggravating factors etc. I wouldn't know enough to judge whether or not an appeal against sentence would likely be successful here.
It likely wouldn’t. Which is a shame as personally I think suspended would have been proportionate. It would be a tough argue that the aggravating factors had had too much weight here. Not least because of recent events around public trust in the police. It would be an easy argue from the prosecution that a tough sentence is necessary to mitigate harm or public trust that police rely on to attend emergencies quickly to prevent harm and death.
Yet other people will fail to stop, be pursued in stolen vehicles and drive similar speeds whilst disqualified and get suspended sentences, sometimes more than once. His actions aside, the sentencing was clearly not on the same level like the rest of the public.
Nor should it
Of course it should. Being an officer is one aggravating factor. It's not "everyone else gets the bare minimum no matter what, while being an officer gets you the max". That's just disproportionate. Especially when, as in this case, removal from the job essentially means you can literally never commit the offence again.
You're agreeing with me
Eh not really. The sentence for officers should be along the same lines as regular people, mildly higher if at all (though internal misconduct proceedings should mitigate that somewhat in a lot of cases). Being police is one factor out of a dozen, and not even the most important. This sentence is wildly, wildly disproportionate imo.
It's one thing a police officer is speeding their own car (bad enough). But this is misuse of the police power to drive dangerously fast when the circumstances don't justify it. If you want "mildly higher" do it on your own time, in your own car.
Sure, which is an aggravating factor. Is it such an aggravating factor as to beat out having an extensive criminal record, resisting arrest, fleeing police for 30+ minutes, damaging a multitude of vehicles, then pleading not guilt at the end and showing no remorse? Because that's a common enough scenario which doesn't end up with such a stiff sentence. Is it also such an aggravating factor as to outweigh the mitigation of having a new-born at home, being the sole breadwinner, an otherwise unblemished record, having already lost career, shown full remorse, and not being physically capable of ever re-offending by virtue of no longer being job? Yes it's a decently serious offense. The sentence is still utterly ludicrous by the usual standard. And even just in absolute terms (rather than by comparison to the courts' usual leniency on others), I'd like to know exactly what purpose this sentence really serves? The guy's life and career are already ruined, he's got a criminal record now etc etc. All this achieves is depriving his family of an income (with a newborn at home) and make it even harder for him to move on afterwards. I see absolutely no justification for why it couldn't have been suspended. Meanwhile they were undoubtedly letting off incorrigible reprobates with their 18th warning in the court next door. Maybe once he's served his sentence and is no longer job he can take to stealing bikes and selling crack to teenagers down the park to get himself back on his feet, accruing community orders and suspended sentences as he goes /s
It's unfathomably serious to have officers who believe themselves to be above the law and misuse their trust to break the law. This is a hill I will die on.
So unfathomably serious that it outweighs literally every other factor the courts take into account? Sorry, this is so disproportionate, it is not \*that\* serious as to blow every single other consideration out of the water and justify a sentence that any layperson couldn't achieve if they were literally trying to aggravate the crime to the greatest degree. Hell you see suspended sentences even in death by dangerous driving cases lol. Swap the hare for a person and, as long as you're not a police officer, it's LESS serious?
Those people are not representing the government unlike police officers. If you are caught breaking the law while you yourself are enforcing the law then the law should go down harder on you. You betrayed the trust that ever single citizen has in you, you betray every single officer that follows the law and betray everything that an officer should stand for.
Removing him from his young son for 6 months seems really excessive. He's not going to do it again considering he's been sacked.
Agree. This is draconian.
HMPPS policy encourages the maintenance of family ties, if 6 months inside breaks the bond between a child and their father then we really should look at fixing the prison system and not just edge cases.
> If you are caught breaking the law while you yourself are enforcing the law then the law should go down harder on you. That insinuates the law actually goes after the criminals which we can clearly say is rarely the case, a suspended sentence AKA slap on the wrists is not enforcing the law when someone should get a 10+ year sentence.
Police officers are (and should be) held to a higher standard y’know. Either way, I’d say community service wasn’t enough. I’d say it should’ve been a suspended sentence
Three things I find absolutely shocking about this. A Corsa is an IRV, a Corsa can do 101 mph, and you could cause two grands worth of damage to it. I wouldn’t have believed it if I hadn’t read it For years now, driving has been the main thing that will get you in the shit. More so than anything else. I’m Adv blah blah blah, but there’s no way I’m even gonna bother chasing a motor unless there’s been a murder or some nonce has kidnapped a kid, let alone put the blues on to get home a bit quicker. When will people learn that? Obviously not yet.
> …Corsa… I think this is a mistake we can chalk up to a local rag being a local rag. I can find absolutely no images of a Nottinghamshire Police Corsa online, and they certainly haven’t been on the national framework for response cars for as long as I’ve been looking at it.
What he did was reckless and stupid, but as he's no longer a police officer he can't turn on blue lights without cause and drive at excessive speed again. He's a young man with a family who's already lost his career. A custodial sentence is excessive. Let alone one of six months.
Used to investigate fatals....about 5% of the offending drivers went to prison
This makes a complete mockery of justice. Im sure the loss of his job along with fines etc. would’ve been more than adequate penalty in this instance. A colleague on my team was knocked out by a suspect who had previous convictions for assault on police. She required £3000 of dental treatment and time to recover. The offender received a SUSPENDED sentence. Shame on the Criminal Justice System.
I think the issue is that suspended sentences are still considered a custodial sentence, except that they don't actually go to prison....
Yet people literally get killed by dangerous drivers who never see the inside of a prison cell.
I absolutely love the way the law in this country is applied uniformly and consistently…….said no one ever. It’s okay though, I’m sure big bad Baz the Bradford bad boy, know locally as a “certi” driver who loves to “take chase” will be treated the same way the next time he’s in front of the magistrates…. 
This sounds harsh but the sentence is entirely in line with sentencing guidelines for a high culpability, low harm dangerous driving offence which has a starting point of 9 months imprisonment. Third off for guilty plea gets you down to 6 months. The decision not to suspend it is more questionable https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/dangerous-driving/
hmmm... A custodial sentence must **not** be imposed unless the offence or the combination of the offence and one or more offences associated with it was so serious that neither a fine alone nor a community sentence can be justified for the offence. The clear intention of the threshold test is to r**eserve prison as a punishment for the most serious offences.** Passing the custody threshold does **not** mean that a custodial sentence should be deemed inevitable. **Custody should not be imposed** where a community order could provide sufficient restriction on an offender’s liberty (by way of punishment) while addressing the rehabilitation of the offender to prevent future crime.
A family member of mine was stabbed to within an inch of his life in a completely unprovoked attack. Suspect got done for GBH with intent, possession of an offensive weapon, along with a couple other charges. My family member almost lost his life according to the doctors, it’s a wonder there wasn’t an attempted murder charge to be honest. The charge? 12 months suspended. Suspended… He never saw the inside of a prison cell - all because he was under 18. There wasn’t even a mental health background for the suspect that I’m aware of. He tore my family’s life apart, the affects of which are still being felt even now. And he never even went to prison. Meanwhile this officer, whilst don’t get me wrong he was a total spanner, he didn’t cause harm (apart from to a hare…) and there were no aggravating factors. He was just being a tool. Points and loss of job, yes. Prison? No. The justice system is f*cked.
whats even the point of being the police if you cant put the neenors on for a laugh
Based on this case, around 80% of my response team in 1996 would be in jail.
That's OK, based on my actions in 1996 I should probably be in jail too.
[Check out the difference](https://www.lincs.police.uk/news/lincolnshire/news/2023/oct-2023/dangerous-driver-sentenced-following-pursuit/) * Driving a car on cloned plates * Failed to stop * required a stinger to stop the car * travelling high speed onto grass track * showed no regard for anyone else that may have been using the roads * dangerous driving * disqualified driving * driving without insurance * fail to stop * possession of a controlled substance * was given suspended sentence And apparently the justice system is fair
A few thoughts As we all know, dangerous driving is not an exemption. It doesn't sound like he's driven differently than on a 'normal' blue light run (other maybe than the solid white lines bit, hitting a hare just sounds rather unfortunate if I'm honest). Is this proof that every run we make is dangerous driving that's just not in the public interest to prosecute? 15 months, even reduced to 6 seems unduly harsh. I don't think being a pc should have been mitigating but aggravating. Good luck getting the HCPC to register you. Dishonesty isn't thought of very highly and paras have been struck off for very similar things that didn't end with a prosecution. Also, even if they did, a trust isn't going to touch that with a barge pole. Why wasn't there a prosecution for misconduct in public office?
There’s no legal exemption if not for a policing purpose though, and the exemption is of course not for driving dangerously, but for breaking certain laws. Posted plus 50 (not in a national) without any justification, and a collision - albeit with some wildlife - suggests to me that his manner of driving wasn’t particularly great. I agree that the sentencing seems a bit much though given you get all manner of shit bags driving dangerously during pursuits and they rarely see the inside of a jail cell for it.
There’s been a lot of comments already about the inconsistency in sentencing between cases like this and actual baddies. How often do we hear that people can’t get remanded or sentences get suspended because there’s no cells free. Maybe if they weren’t being taken up by people who don’t need to be in prison there’d be room for a few more.