Meredydd Hughes - "The hypocrisy is absolutely breathtaking"

[Magilla 510]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/6179632.stm

 

He's supposed to be cracking down on motorist who use loopholes in the law to escape motoring/speeding convictions, then admits live on Newsnight that he frequently lets his own officers off using these very same loopholes, and now this.

 

This man is clearly in entirely the wrong job.

[Heyesey 11]

It's not the police's fault if the magistrates choose to acquit.

[forumer 10]

You are misrepresenting what he said, see below:-

 

Chief Constable Meredydd Hughes said on Friday: "This incident has obviously raised public concern and it is very regrettable that an officer should apparently have disregarded a speed camera under these circumstances"

 

"The decision of the court in the face of the evidence presented to them is entirely a matter for them, but South Yorkshire Police will always seek to prosecute police drivers where evidence suggests they have failed to comply with the law which covers their use of police vehicles"

 

To me it looks like hes going to take action against the officer. Can't say fairer than that.

[Magilla 510]

It's not the police's fault if the magistrates choose to acquit.

 

It's also not their fault if the case never gets to court because the chief of police has decided to let his officer off!

 

The evidence to the magistrates court was clearly suspect. This officer *was not* in the process of attending an urgent accident, since his lights and siren were not on. I cannot see any justification for him not recieving a ticket beyond the fact that he is a police officer.

[Magilla 510]

To me it looks like hes going to take action against the officer. Can't say fairer than that.

 

From the article on the Beeb it seems like the evidence to the courts was presented in a way that was *extremely* favourable to the officer.

 

Since his lights and siren were not on it doesn't appear to hold water. The fact that it would be his workmates presenting the evidence against him also bears consideration.

 

Sounds remarkably like the (according to his own force) "totally safe" officer doing "160mph on a dual carriageway and 90mph in a 30 zone" getting to the carriageway case.

When an ambulance driver gets caught speeding with a replacement heart on the passenger seat, he gets a ticket, a copper rushing for a curry.. oh that's OK then.

[Haydn1971 10]

If the evidence was flawed then the police officer has just as much a right to escape prosecution as the next person...

 

What happens via a work disaplinary is surely non of our business...

[Heyesey 11]

From the article on the Beeb it seems like the evidence to the courts was presented in a way that was *extremely* favourable to the officer.

 

No it doesn't. He claimed he was going to an accident but was then called off, so went to get food instead; the magistrates were told that the food had been ordered in advance and he wasn't en route to the accident anyway.

 

They knew damn well he was lying, and still chose to acquit him. That is not the police force's fault, and it sure isn't Hughes's fault, no matter what sins he may have committed in this area before.

[Heyesey 11]

If the evidence was flawed then the police officer has just as much a right to escape prosecution as the next person... .

 

 

The problem with that (although it doesn't hold in this case, from what the report says) is that it's the police who gather the evidence. If they don't want one of their own to be prosecuted, they can quite easily avoid it, by just making a hash of gathering the evidence on purpose.

 

It's not enough that the police *aren't* corrupt; they have to be *visibly* not corrupt. If they are collecting evidence against one of their own colleagues, who then escapes prosecution for lack of evidence - that might be, and probably IS, genuine lack of evidence, but it might also be corrupt practice. They should be required to behave in such a way that they can't even be ACCUSED of corrupt practices, whether or not they're actually committing anyway.

[Lancs_Lad 10]

If the evidence was flawed then the police officer has just as much a right to escape prosecution as the next person...

 

What happens via a work disaplinary is surely non of our business...

 

If the evidence presented had been flawed then the case would never have got to court in the first place.

 

This has nothing to do with inadequate prosecution and more to do with the officers defence team putting forward an argument in court that the magistrates decided to believe rather than the CPS prosecutor. In many cases defendants are aquitted due to incompetent CPS prosecutors.

[Darbees 10]

This is typical of some idiotic magistrates who stick up for the police no matter what they do. In this instance the police as an organisation did the right thing in taking him to court, it's the magistrates who are wrong. This policeman should be sacked on the spot because he will have used his discretion ( ) in the past to prosecute others for the same offence. The police have to be whiter than white, hypocrisy is one of my (many) pet hates.

[Magilla 510]

No it doesn't. He claimed he was going to an accident but was then called off, so went to get food instead; the magistrates were told that the food had been ordered in advance and he wasn't en route to the accident anyway.

 

They knew damn well he was lying, and still chose to acquit him. That is not the police force's fault, and it sure isn't Hughes's fault, no matter what sins he may have committed in this area before.

 

 

Yes, the magistrates make the final decision, but since Hughes has publicly come out against the ordinary people in the street getting away with speeding tickets using this form of loophole, it doesn't do much for his credability when his force use a completely illogical and nonsensical defence.

 

Since the call to the accident had been disregarded and they were on the way to get a takeaway, why were they speeding, and why didn't they recieve a ticket?

 

This ruling is baffling... I can't help but feel the evidence submitted by his force bears no relevance to the circumstances, since he admitted he was not attending an emergency just what has it got to do with anything? How does it bear any relevance?

[Darbees 10]

If he was caught speeding by a camera there is NO evidence that could get him off unless he had blues and twos on, it's as simple as that. The magistrates are stupid and his defence team know that. There are loads of tales about people being done for speeding in emergencies such as taking a woman in labour to hospital when the police and magistrates have been unmoved by defendants pleas.

 

Also, how come he is allowed to use a police car to collect a takeaway?