75ZT Community

No longer being a Magistrate, I have no new tales to tell, but SWMBO has kept scrapbooks of the newspaper cuttings of my cases since I first started and reading through them reminds me of some which might amuse, the following being a case in point.

A man of 18 years is charged with dangerous driving and elects for trial by pleading not guilty. He is also charged with no insurance and taking a vehicle without consent.

It is rare to see a dangerous driving case heard in the Magistrates' Court but I suspect that this one was undervalued, as it were, during the initial hearing.

So, the prosecution evidence comprises a dash-cam video from a marked Police car, with a commentary from the Police car driver, a qualified class 1 driver, and his crewman, also a qualified class 1 driver.

What we saw and heard made out the case and, whilst not the worst I have ever seen it was still an example of dreadful driving where the safety of other road users is not considered at all by the driver of the car being pursued. As a Bench, we assume that the defence will be "It wasn't me".

However that was not the defence offered. The defendant, being un-represented, was asked to account for himself.

He told us that he was the driver of the car and when asked confirmed that he had no personal emergency at the time, ie. duress, or a partner in labour etc.

His defence was that the Police officers' evidence was not satisfactory because of their lack of experience and qualifications. This was an interesting statement and we asked to hear more.

He told us that, from a young child, he had played every car racing game ever produced for the Playstation and indeed, even now, he still spent upwards of 8 to 10 hours a day, every day, on his X-box, honing his skills. Owing to this, his assessment of what was acceptable when performed by a man of his skills, clearly outweighed the evidence provided by the prosecution.

However, it did not end there and he called a total of four witnesses, with, I have to say, the combined IQ of a duck egg, to tell the Court how skillful a driver he was, illustrating their contentions with somewhat lurid descriptions of their times in a car with him.

Now, I am obliged not to tell you of the discussion that took place in the retiring room but suffice to say that less than a minute after we had risen, we returned with a guilty verdict, and a direction that the CPS should require the Police to follow up on some of the defence evidence with a view to further charges.

The defendant was sent to the Crown Court for sentence.

Presumably he had a medical condition that required him not to sleep.......10 hours of playing video games, 8 hours of work, 1 hour to and from work, meals, say, 1 hour - so that is 20 hours without doing anything else....or am I being silly.

Paul, seems like you could have the material for a book.

Work, as I remember, didn't figure in his lifestyle Paul.

What was the old quote "Nobody ever went broke by underestimating the intelligence...."?
I think it was originally about the American masses but can be equally applied here.

One thing I remember above all about this case was the defendant's total confidence in his argument.

This might be the sort of person who shoots somebody dead and then looks for the re-boot button.