UK cops use £10,000 to bust a nurse eating an apple.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Desertdog

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
1,980
Location
Ridgecrest Ca
How police used £10,000 to stalk route of an apple-eating driver

Is this where our freedoms are going? I have been hearing of states trying or passing driver "no eat" laws.



How police used £10,000 to stalk route of an apple-eating driver
By Helen Nugent
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1455523,00.html

A NURSERY nurse was fined £60 yesterday for holding an apple in her hand while driving around a bend after police used a spotter aircraft, a helicopter and a patrol car to win the case.

Northumbria Police went to extraordinary lengths to gather evidence against Sarah McCaffery, 23, who had missed breakfast and grabbed the apple to eat on her way to work. Magistrates ruled that she had not been in full control of her car. Miss McCaffery was also ordered to pay £100 costs at the tenth court hearing of the case.

Chris Kay, for the prosecution, said that the bill was £425, not including the aerial photographs and the squad vehicle’s video. The full cost of bringing the case against Miss McCaffery is thought to have been about £10,000.

The cost of keeping a helicopter flying for an hour can reach £500. The police claimed that their helicopter was already on operations in South Tyneside when it took the photos, so the additional cost was just £66.

Geoffrey Forrester, for the defence, told South Tyneside magistrates that Miss McCaffery had been driving in dry conditions, that there was no traffic or pedestrians and that the manoeuvre was carried out perfectly.

The dispute between Miss McCaffery, who lives in Hebburn, and the police began on December 4, 2003. In an interview given before yesterday’s court hearing, she described how she took the same route to work in her Ford Ka as she had done for four years. As she negotiated a left turn with an apple in her right hand she was still in second gear when she saw the blue lights of a police car.

PC Lee Butler had spotted her driving with her right hand by her face and believed that she may have been using a mobile phone, the court was told.

When he discovered that she was holding a half-eaten apple, he issued her with a £30 fixed-penalty ticket. The nurse, however, said before yesterday’s 2½-hour trial: “I wasn’t speeding or swerving around. It was a small apple and I had both hands on the steering wheel when I turned into the road. The apple was in my right hand but I could still hold the steering wheel and steer the car.â€

The court was told how police brought in a fixed-wing spotter aircraft to fly over Miss McCaffery’s route to work and take photographs. Later the force’s helicopter repeated the exercise before a patrol car made a video of the journey.

Mr Forrester said: “Nothing illustrates the nonsense of this case more than the resources that have been thrown at it.†Ken Buck, the chairman of the bench, concluded: “We accept that there are times when you can drive with one hand but, in holding an apple while negotiating a left-hand turn, we consider you not to have been in full control. We are therefore satisfied beyond reasonable oubt that this case is proved.â€
 
How police used £10,000 to stalk route of an apple-eating driver
By Helen Nugent

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1455523,00.html

A NURSERY nurse was fined £60 yesterday for holding an apple in her hand while driving around a bend after police used a spotter aircraft, a helicopter and a patrol car to win the case.

Northumbria Police went to extraordinary lengths to gather evidence against Sarah McCaffery, 23, who had missed breakfast and grabbed the apple to eat on her way to work. Magistrates ruled that she had not been in full control of her car. Miss McCaffery was also ordered to pay £100 costs at the tenth court hearing of the case.

Chris Kay, for the prosecution, said that the bill was £425, not including the aerial photographs and the squad vehicle’s video. The full cost of bringing the case against Miss McCaffery is thought to have been about £10,000.

The cost of keeping a helicopter flying for an hour can reach £500. The police claimed that their helicopter was already on operations in South Tyneside when it took the photos, so the additional cost was just £66.

Geoffrey Forrester, for the defence, told South Tyneside magistrates that Miss McCaffery had been driving in dry conditions, that there was no traffic or pedestrians and that the manoeuvre was carried out perfectly.

The dispute between Miss McCaffery, who lives in Hebburn, and the police began on December 4, 2003. In an interview given before yesterday’s court hearing, she described how she took the same route to work in her Ford Ka as she had done for four years. As she negotiated a left turn with an apple in her right hand she was still in second gear when she saw the blue lights of a police car.

PC Lee Butler had spotted her driving with her right hand by her face and believed that she may have been using a mobile phone, the court was told.

When he discovered that she was holding a half-eaten apple, he issued her with a £30 fixed-penalty ticket. The nurse, however, said before yesterday’s 2½-hour trial: “I wasn’t speeding or swerving around. It was a small apple and I had both hands on the steering wheel when I turned into the road. The apple was in my right hand but I could still hold the steering wheel and steer the car.â€

The court was told how police brought in a fixed-wing spotter aircraft to fly over Miss McCaffery’s route to work and take photographs. Later the force’s helicopter repeated the exercise before a patrol car made a video of the journey.

Mr Forrester said: “Nothing illustrates the nonsense of this case more than the resources that have been thrown at it.†Ken Buck, the chairman of the bench, concluded: “We accept that there are times when you can drive with one hand but, in holding an apple while negotiating a left-hand turn, we consider you not to have been in full control. We are therefore satisfied beyond reasonable dobt that this case is proved.â€
 
and they all sang a rousing chorus of 'God Save the Queen' then went home.
 
Ah Great Britain... why do I forsee a whole new slew of jokes polarized around the policies and people of a different nation than has been popular in the past?

:rolleyes:
 
Sadly, this is just another one of the Murdoch paper's "outrage" stories that has little bearing to the truth.

For a start, the defence and media calculated the cost of prosecution based on how much it would cost them to do it, not how much it cost the Police - as is actually shown in the article.

Secondly, the reason for the Court case, the gathering of that evidence, and the repeated adjournments is almost certainly down to defence demands for fresh evidence to "enable them to represent their client" - ie: attempts to get the CPS to drop it on grounds of public interest (cost). Even if you accept the defence's version of the costs you get £10000, which is expensive for one case - but a pittance when, if they failed to defend this case, the consequences of every subsequent defence playing the same card; namely the collapse of the penalty ticket system.

Before anyone says it, let me point out that the way these tickets are dealt with is that an officer issues it, the defendant either pays, or indicates that she wants to fight it; in which case a Court case ensues. The CPS then run the case based on the ticket (it contains the officer's statement), and the only way more evidence is gained is if the defence ask for it - as they did in this case (first photos, then aerial video, then patrol car video).

To pay the ticket - which she was guilty of, as the magistrates found - would have cost her £30. Instead, she and her solicitors attempted to play the system and lost - and, had I been the magistrate, I would have judged the costs based on what the defence allege it was, and had the cost split between her and her solicitors pour encourager les autres.
 
"To pay the ticket - which she was guilty of, as the magistrates found - would have cost her £30."

For eating and apple and driving at the same time......

What foolishnes and what an insane waste of resources! For eating an apple behind the wheel. It's indefensable.
Shame on them and their "hall monitor" wrong headedness!

S-
 
The queen's barrister: Your magistrate, the government asks the court to accept the present evidence and convict the defendant.

Barrister for the defense, I object, the Crown has yet to prove a case.

Magistrate: couselors, there will be a conference in my chambers...

later when court resumes:

Objection overrulled. "If the Crown actually had to investigate every case it would be a huge financial burden for the public. The Crown has already spent more that 50 Pounds on evidence, I find that sufficient for conviction and therefore rule for the Crown...
 
With what was she charged?
She says she was in control during the turn. Wouldn't the in car video prove or disprove that statement?
 
Agricola, she was pulled over because the cop thought she was using a cell phone. It said nothing about her driving erratically or dangerously. You are using the "if the cops punish you, you must have diserved it" logic again.
 
First, it is hard to stop laughing long enough to type.

Second, it is hard to stop crying long enough to type.

What a sad day for the land of my ancestors. I believe that this story is truly emblematic of the rot at the core (pun intended) of the UK today. I hope that they pass through this imbecilic phase with only minimal damage done, and that the future will hold at least SOME common sense.
 
The illogic of using this level of policing resources is exceeded only by the unlessness of enforcing a regulation of this nature in the first place.

At least in GB, if the regulation is on "the books" it must be worthwhile and worthy of enforcement. Hogwash. It only prove your printers in GB have ink, functional printing presses and paper to waste, and lawmakers that are dim bulbs.

Excuse me but I'm having genuine difficulty disengaging the stupidity demonstarted in one element of this news item (10K pounds for evidence collection in eating the apple behind the wheel) from the other stupid element mentioned in the story (the law itself).

One can only wonder how long Brits may be permitted to carry passengers, including their children, in their private autos.

Ag, is it still legal to posses autos equipped with radios in GB?
Is this crime not in aid of considering a ban on apples? teeth?


S-
 
How was she not in control agri? Read the article again. The cop said nothing about her car swerving or weaving. She had an apple in her hand, not a snake. And yes it is possible to navigate a turn with one hand and keep the car in control. IF the cops could show she was not in control i.e. weaving, swerving, etc, why didn't they. They only got her on eating an apple. Nothing more. :cuss:
 
Wonder how many of the cops had donuts in the car? Can they prove they weren't eating them while driving?
 
Indy,

I read the article, and it seems to contain none of the officers testimony, what he saw (aside from to say he was mistaken about it being a mobile phone)- and a great deal from the defendant. Given that, if what is reported there is truthful, she would never have had a ticket - to say nothing of being found guilty - its reasonable to extrapolate that there is rather more to this than the Times has seen fit to tell us.

Again, I point out that the reason why the extra effort was lavished on this case is almost certainly down to the defence making demands - a point which the nine adjournments makes very clearly indeed, as does the fact that the trial for this lasted two hours.
 
Anybody ever see an episode of cops where they have 10 cops on a stakeout busting Johns?

Can you imagine the cost of that operation for a day over something as silly as busting Johns.

As law enforcement becomes bloated with people, they have to do something in between hangin yellow tape and making reports.

We are no different over here to the extent that the legal system will go to prosecute the dumbest of things as long as the tax payers keep shoveling in the funds.
 
We are not the jury and do not know all the facts, but from waht I do know this is absolutely ridiculous. There is no stated evidence that she was driving erratically, rather she was convicted because the jury believes that it is not possible to be driving with one hand and be "in full control of a vehicle" while negotiating a left turn.

I haved lived in Great Britain and on an individual level, the people are wonderful. Currently, 2/3 of my 3 person business is composed of Brits so I really do like them. I just can't believe what they are collectively allowing their country to become. I truly have pity for them.
 
As law enforcement becomes bloated with people, they have to do something in between hangin yellow tape and making reports.
And it gets worse as they acquire high tech weapons and toys.
 
she's convicted because she hasn't got both hands on the wheel. They can (and have) done people for this even when going fender-to-fender in a long line of crawling traffic at 0.3 mph.
It's things like this that make you think "if ever I get on a jury, it'll be Not Guilty, whatever he's done."
 
Damn, there are so many aircraft and military museums in Great Britain that I'd like to visit again. And my brother would so much like to go hiking in the Brecon Beacons or the Scottish Highlands.
But unfortunately the reasons not to go to Great Britain again increasing.

There's so much that's perfectly legal on this side of the channel, but is highly illegal on Britain's side. Why?
 
When I was in England, I noticed that all of the cars there that I saw had manual transmissions (except the one I rented--I wasn't about to try to drive a manual on the wrong side of the car on the wrong side of the road!) I asked the gentleman that took us on several tours of the beautiful Cornish countryside about it and he said that the vast majority of drivers there do in fact drive manual transmissions.

A while back, I heard a story of a woman in England who was caught on a traffic camera with only one hand on the steering wheel and was issued a citation. Of course, I thought this was complete BS because of the manual transmission issue. After all, it is quite impossible to keep both hands on the steering wheel and shift gears at the same time. After reading this, I'm starting to wonder if that story was true.

Rick
 
Most cars here are manual shift. We reckon automatics are for cripples and people who can't drive properly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top