Well if you're going to jail bikers for going >150 you're going to have to jail car drivers doing a greater speed.

 

And for a lighter hearted view of the whole matter:

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.c...dline=s1i25070

 

This case, as far as I can read, did not go before a jury. It was bumped up to the Crown Court by the Magistrates, possibly because their sentencing powers were inadequate and equally possible because the magistrates thought the case was sufficiently high profile that a crown Court judge should deal with.

At the Crown Court Brady pleaded guilty to the charge of dangerous driving and the CPS accepted his plea to not guilty of Taking the Vehicle Without the Owner's Consent ("TWOC"). Thus there was no need for a trial and hence no involvement of a jury. He was sentenced by the Crown Court Judge.

Since he pleaded guilty to dangerous driving there was no need for the CPS to introduce expert evidence as to whether his driving was dangerous. If Brady had pleaded not guilty then the onus would have been on the Crown, represented by the CPS, to prove Brady's guilt of the charge, and the level of proof required is "beyond reasonable doubt". This means that the jury hearing the case - although I'm not sure whether this charge now requires a jury trial - need to "be sure" that the defendant is guilty. The CPS would have had to introduce evidance in support of the charge that Brady's driving was dangerous.

As for your question about whether someone doing 110 on a Motorway would be treated differently, the answer depends on the facts. Someone once tailgated me down the M5 at speeds of up to 96 - I got 3 points and a

 

Really interesting to see how these things realy work

Maybe he should have pleaded not guilty (As per what Mark B was referring to)?

 

If it had been 172 down a deserted motorway at 2.00am he might have had a chance but 172 on an A road in daylight hours he had no chance. If he had pleaded not guilty and been convicted he would have received a heavier sentence - you get credit for pleading guilty.

 

Good way of doing someone over big time;

Say he attacked you with knife, burden of proof's on you.

Say he attacked you with his car, they'll hang him without a trial.

Funny old world.

 

Many, many years ago I was travelling out of hours through Exeter and tripped the gatso there which I had completely forgotten about.
I attended Exeter Magistrates and was handed a one month driving ban and a fine of a couple hundred pounds for a recorded 102mph.
Up in front of the Magistrates, just before me was a guy in similar circumstances, offence at almost the same time and day with a recorded 109mph.
He escaped the ban and accepted a slightly larger fine.

Why?

Because he was unemployed and was the only driver for his father who was registered disabled. I effectively lost my job over this.
Strange world...

 

Hence, don't speed. And if your job requires you to drive then really don't speed.

 

Bollocks.

Get a job that allows you to speed.

Trafpol?

 

Indeed