Safe Speed Forums

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

If the Police surgeon was present I don't see that it makes any difference whether he was holdind the syringe or one of the other doctors. Next time the Police surgeon will have no choice but to insist on taking the blood himself no matter what state the patient is in - is that really what we want?

Fair point, which is why I feel should there be some allowance for unexpected, unforeseen genuine error (that doesn’t change the fact the person is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt) then perhaps the case can be heard at a latter date.

Again, it’s the Justice System, had an Officer forgotten a signature and not been present, or forgot to sign an exhibit statement, they should reschedule, rather than let the guilty person walk free.

Which is exactly how the legal system does work. Adjournments can be granted to sort things out, but not generally to correct obvious, major errors by the prosecution. it’s a not so obvious minor error, and there is no exception for that in court currently.

It’s sad to think that a Police Officer (who, by the way, is human) could make a mistake and that would allow for a guilty person to walk free.

Simple argument, of course you have to consider human rights <sigh> and all the above, but jesus, people are human, they make mistakes.
Should the person murdered in my scenario get off scott free had they been guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

better that than the same officer's mistake sending an innocent man to jail.

Perhaps, but it would be the Judge who would decide if it’s admissible, not the Police Officer.

You have missed the point... The police sergeon should not have attempted to get his blood sample whilst people were stil trying to save his life. No prosicution is that important. You do not get 7 doctors crowded around one patient for nothing. He should have insisted in his sample in a couple of hours time...When the patient was not in such a critical condition. If the man was still alive.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

No one was present when the blood was taken, who’s to say the “surgeon” got in the way.
It’s not a bloody police cadet standing there saying “nope I need you all to clear out of the room while I take a blood specimen” .

It’s a Police surgeon, there hardly going to get in the way are they, I know I’d rather have eight surgeons in a room than seven.

Er.. we'd get in the way of each other and none of us would agree on anything..

No two medics have the same opinion on most things.. ..about the only thing me and Wildy agree on are speed cams - We have some right set-tos when up against each other professionally.


For the record .. IG already spelled out the procedure from a :cop: point of view.

I am also conversant with S9 as "haematology" falls under my "brolly of power"

But basically per S9 of the Road Traffic Act if a person is in hospital as a patient he or she is not required to provide a specimen of breath for a breath test unless the medical pracitioner in charge of the case has been notified of the proposal to make the requirement and

a) if the requirement is then made -it shall be for the provision of a specimen at the hospital and
b) if the docotr objects on grounds specified in subsection 2 the requirement shall not be made.

1A - While a person is at the hospital as a patient - no specimen of blood can be taken under s7A and he or she will not be required to give permission for a lab test of a specimen unless the docotr in charge has been

a) notified of the requirement
b) has not objected on the grounds of subsection 2.

2. The ground on which a doctor in charge can object is

a) a case falling within subsection 1 where the specimen would prejudice proper care and treatment of the patient.. (if he's bleeding to death.. and we are almost losing him - we will object..)

b) a case falling within subsection 1A that the taking of the speciment would be prejudicial to treatment.

If I am the doctor in charge and we have no call to object to the specimen - then I have to get another doctor to take the sample in my presence.

This procedure is set out in the Act and failure to take specimens as laid out.. - well .. sort of thing Mr Freeman and any lawyer will pounce on to mitigate the outcome..

A patient can agree to give a specimen of blood and urine at the hospital but if we discharge the patient before this occurs - then tthe patient can be re-arrested and taken off to the police station to give the sample instead. But whilst a patient in hospital - consent for sample has to be agreed by patient and doctor in charge and he then has to get another doctor to take the sample in his presence. If the patient's treatment is critical.. doctor in charge can object on medical grounds ..Police surgeon (usually GPs) will have no authority as not "doctor in charge of treatement" - but he would still be able to take a sample in the presence of the doctor in charge under s9 provisions -ie - providing the specimen does not prejudice treatment and care of the patient.

Thus - in this case the police surgeon should not have taken any sample without consent of the doctor in charge.

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

I dont know the case that everyone is quoting here, but my experience in these matters and I have done hundreds over the years, is that the doctor in charge gives permission for a breath test which if proves positive the doctor gets called. If patient is to ill or unconcious and doctor gives permision then police surgeon attends and takes blood. So,its not the police's fault that the doctor takes the blood without permission then thats down to him.Exactly as Mad Moggie explains but what puzzles me is why the police surgeon was called in the first place if no permision had been given yet,unless the police officer had made it up which I very much doubt as the doctor or nursing staff wouldnt let anyone in if the doctor who is looking after his welfare refused,but from what I read the doctor or doctors gave the police surgeon a sample so someone must have gave permision for it to be done.
Stephen

This thread is exactly the reason why we have procedures; they should iliminate the requirement for if's, buts and doubts!

i would imagine that the true nature of the charge will emerge in the the course of time, i doubt if anyone knows exactly what freeman is supposed to have done

I would hope the police do!

The police are probably still making their minds up

tiff nedell wins
and now this case

'Mr Loophole' works magic again to put brakes on Meg case



cps nill - mr loophole 2

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

Safe Speed issued the following PR at 12:55 this afternoon:

PR412: Mrs Gallagher: 103mph: Acquitted

news: for immediate release

According to reports, Mrs Noel Gallagher, was acquitted today, having been
accused of driving at 103mph on the A11. Apparently Police paperwork was not
served in time.

It is quite wrong to characterise most cases of this nature as 'loophole'
victories. The law is perfectly clear on the requirements for service of
papers, and for very good reasons. The vast majority of these victories arise
because of fatal flaws in prosecution cases.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(wwww.safespeed.org.uk) said: "The tragedy is that speed enforcement has
become an absurd game of cat and mouse with the original objective of safer
roads long forgotten. Motorists are trying to evade the cameras and the law,
while the Police are trying to capture motorists speeding."

"In fact is has become a war of technicalities - the police enforce technical
offences rather than safety offences and more and more motorists are requiring
the Police to prove that their case in matching technical detail. None of us
are up to the standards required. All motorists break the speed limit from time
to time, and most Police cases have a fatal flaw if you look hard enough."

"The speed limit laws are unlike other laws, and the present degree of
concentration on them is a deadly mistake. No wonder motorists are fighting
technicalities with technicalities. No other laws expect responsible people to
operate continuously on the margins of legality - but that's exactly what we're
doing whenever we attempt to drive at the speed limit."

"While we all know that it is important that no one drives too fast, my message
to the Police is this: NEVER forget that the speed limit is just a proxy for
the desired behaviour; NEVER let the importance of the proxy exceed the
importance of the desired behaviour. We need our motorists to keep their
eyes on the ball and never the referee."

"The speed limit laws served us very well when they were enforce with
intelligence and discretion. Now it's numbers and cameras, we have promoted a
good law way beyond its level of competence to the point of dangerous
distraction. The only way back is to scrap speed cameras and Police the roads
intelligently."

<ends>

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

"x " Mrs Gallagher!!!

http://www.myvillage.co.uk/pages/celebs-megmathews.htm

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code