Stiff penalties for leading a ride out

[davedixon]

Imagine if you will, your riding along and some way behind you a couple of sportsbikes are giving it some welly. As they catch up to you the Police pull them up and because you are just ahead of them (but havant a clue whats going on) you are also done as they believe you are all part of the ride out and you are the leader. As you are the leader you will get stung like the sportsbikes but more so as you are the leader. WTF thought this one up? Its already been done down south in Chichester way so the courts now have an example to follow. OK they were all part of the same group but you can see where this is going to lead cant you. Will this apply to cars also? (silly question) Dave.

[Sharribee]

Do you have a link to the story Dave

[Tim in Holland]

Go quicker then the group won't catch you

[Titch]

Do you have a link to the story Dave

Was just going to put this story on here and noticed that Dave had already mentioned it, but as you requested, here is the story that a colleague of mine sent me tonight...


Stiffer speeding penalties for leading rideout

By Steve Farrell -
General news
19 November 2009 16:34


Motorcyclists at the head of a group of riders will face stiffer penalties for speeding under a crown court ruling.
Being the lead rider in a group is an aggravating factor making you partly responsible for speeding offences of those behind you according to the decision.
The ruling can be applied in any future cases where two or more motorcyclists riding together are accused of speeding. The head rider might be only a few mph over the limit but could be given the same penalty as the worst offender behind.
Road traffic solicitor Robert Dobson said: "Any crown court decision can be stated in future cases. This is potentially a very dangerous judgement for motorcyclists.
"Riders in a group change position frequently.
"If you are riding at the front any group at excess speed, then the very fact you're at the front is an aggravating factor."
Ken Clark, 49, reached 85mph on his Yamaha R1 while leading a group of three riders on the 60mph A272 near Rogate, Sussex, last June.
The speed is within the usual threshold for a fixed penalty of three points and a £60 fine.
But Chichester Crown Court ruled he should receive the same penalty as a following rider accused of going 103mph.
Barrister notes on the ruling given to Clark after the hearing state: `Although his was the lesser speed, [the bench] found it an aggravating feature that he was the lead motorcyclist, was setting the pace and he knew that the other two motorcyclists would want to catch him up and would be speeding to do so.'
The court rejected Clark's appeal against six points, a £100 fine and £250 court costs.
Clark said: "This should have been three points and a £60 fine but so far it's cost me £2,500 including solicitors' bills and I have six points on a licence which has been clean for the last 24 years."
Clark's solicitor, Philip Somarakis, said 103mph was the speed reached by a police officer on an unmarked bike while tailing Clark's two friends, but the prosecution accepted it was not possible to prove from video evidence that Clark himself had exceeded 85mph.
"The gist of the ruling is that to be a lead motorcyclist makes you somehow responsible for the actions of those behind you," he added.
Gary Baldwin, former police motorcyclist and co-director of advanced riding school Rapid Training, said: "It's a dangerous precedent to suggest you are now responsible for someone who's in control of another vehicle.
"How do I control what they do? If someone is following me and I get in an overtake that they don't, they may go faster to catch up but that is their choice."

[pdsquire]

Imagine if you will, your riding along and some way behind you a couple of sportsbikes are giving it some welly. As they catch up to you the Police pull them up and because you are just ahead of them (but havant a clue whats going on) you are also done as they believe you are all part of the ride out and you are the leader. As you are the leader you will get stung like the sportsbikes but more so as you are the leader. WTF thought this one up? Its already been done down south in Chichester way so the courts now have an example to follow. OK they were all part of the same group but you can see where this is going to lead cant you. Will this apply to cars also? (silly question) Dave.

Seems unlikely, Dave. The magistrates would have to be sure that you were involved - beyond reasonable doubt, that is. If there's nowt to link you and the other riders then there's almost no possibility of a conviction.

The 'example' in Chichester is nowt to worry about (not that I know anything about it). Only the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court make decisions that other courts are required to follow. Odd decisions are made by lower courts all the time: they don't create any precedent.

Finally, if this story ended with a conviction, was there an appeal?

Cheers!

[pdsquire]

Aha! So they WERE riding together.

Well it's harsh, but it's legally right because they were involved in what's called a 'joint enterprise'.

If you break the law and you do so in company with other people then unless you can show that you tried to disassociate yourself from their offending, or that when you began the enterprise you had no idea what was going to happen, you will be sentenced the same as they.

Consider two scrotes enter your granny's home. One of them has a knife. The other one looks on and laughs while the knife-man holds the knife to her neck and rapes her. The laugher never carried the knife and didn't harm granny at all.

You can understand why both men would be sentenced the same.

If in the same situation the second man could persuade the court that he had no idea the other had a knife, that he tried to stop the assault or that he left the house before it happened, he'd be sentenced differently.

The report quoted above is a journalist's report based on a solicitor's account of what a barrister wrote to tell the solicitor after the hearing. Quite apart from the Chinese whispers that that entails, as it was a speeding offence, the barrister was probably very junior. It is possible that s/he has faithfully recorded what the judge and two magistrates on appeal said even though it is legally questionable. But whether that is what they said or not, the fact that this was a joint enterprise means the sentences would be the same. The 'lead' rider was breaking the law (and there but for the grace of God go I - I'm not sure I'd ride that slow on an R1!), was doing so with others, could readily anticipate that they would break the law too and did nothing to disassociate himself from their law-breaking.

This is not new law. Probably the most famous joint enterprise case in English legal history was Christopher Craig and Derek Bentley. Derek Bentley case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is yet another bad bit of journalism. The first sentence is a complete lie. We riders have to contend with bad road surfaces, careless cagers, weather, pedestrians with iPods. Hysterical and inaccurate journos are an unnecessary addition!

Ride safe

[Snaphappy]

If you break the law and you do so in company with other people then unless you can show that you tried to disassociate yourself from their offending,

Ride safe

He did but they kept catching up

[AlanH]

For the legal brains - would it be feasible to use a pre-rideout signed disclaimer to disassociate the actions of others from that of the leader?

[raymo]

For the legal brains - would it be feasible to use a pre-rideout signed disclaimer to disassociate the actions of others from that of the leader?

and a signed risk assessment

a manditory pre-ride talk , all signed off and approved by a level one instructor

note a level 3 riding instructor ( certs must be in date code ) is a requirement on the ride ,

note, for the avoidance of doubt ..two bikes with in 100m is classed a group

note 1 level 3 per 8 riders

sod it I am going out on my own...

this mob just caught up with me

And we now have Hercul Poirod as the president of the EU..

worlds gon mad

[Austin]

For the legal brains - would it be feasible to use a pre-rideout signed disclaimer to disassociate the actions of others from that of the leader?

just what I was thinking. Although my other thought is, as leader, don't speed (or at least don't get caught).

Also, loathe as I am to argue with a Barrister, but not sure I think Phil's point about joint enterprise can be right. If the group sets off with the intention of comitting an offence (speeding in this case) then probably I would agree. But, if there was no such intention how can it possibly be a joint enterprise. The decision to speed is solely and completely in the control of each individual rider and unless there's 2-way radio each rider can neither be able to stop or egg-on the other. The rapist/ accomplice scenario is invalid in this case. From the Bentley case wiki, there is a link to "joint enterprise" and within there there is a clause relating to "deliberate departure".

"Where one of the participants deliberately departs from the common purpose by doing something that was not authorised or agreed upon, they alone are liable for the consequences. In the situation exemplified in Davies v DPP (1954) AC 378 a group comes together for a fight or to commit a crime and either they know or do not know that one of their team has a weapon. If they know that there is a weapon, it is foreseeable that it might be used and the fact that the other participants do not instruct the one carrying to leave it behind, means that its use must be within the scope of their intention. But if they do not know of the weapon, this is a deliberate departure from the common purpose and this breaks the enterprise."

This seems to cover it for me, ie if there is no intention to speed at the outset, then anyone who does speed has broken the rules of the joint enterprise and that offence should be considered on its own merits.