The Musings of Harry

Why are we wasting time dragging through the courts people who’ve neglected to pay a 90p fare? Worse still, why are we hampering these people’s lives with criminal records?

Why are diluting the seriousness of criminal records with fare dodgers, anyway? Why is it even a criminal offence? Why not just a tort? Why are we criminalising people over such trivia?

Wtf?

I do so love it when hard research backs up my long held suspicions.

Geeklawyer was kind enough to send me a link to this story. In a nutshell: there doesn’t seem to be any meaningful correlation between the numbers of cameras operated by the Police and crime clean-up rates.

The number of cameras in each London borough was compared to the crime clean-up rate for that borough. The borough with the most cameras, Hackney (1,484 cameras), had an above average clean-up rate of 22.2%, but Brent (164 cameras) has the highest rate in London: 25.9%. Several boroughs with 700-900 cameras fail to reach the average of 21%, as do several other boroughs with only 100 or so. There is quite clearly no correlation here: cameras appear not to be substantively useful for solving crimes.

Some will say that cameras deter crimes in the first place, but I doubt this. The rise of the hoody strikes me as a rather obvious countermeasure to cameras, which are usually mounted overhead. Criminals seem to care so little about being caught on camera that enough footage of criminal activity has been produced to sustain several television programmes dedicated to exhibiting the antics of the underclass for light entertainment. Nonetheless, it would be interesting to see some research that includes this data too: the total rate of reported crime, the clean-up rate, and the number of cameras, plotted against date for each London borough and going back 20 years would be ideal.

Perhaps one day, when I don’t have a million other things to do, I will have a go!

Why is it that Mark Milton was cleared of any crime after being caught driving at 159mph, but Tim Brady was jailed for ten weeks, banned for three years and ordered to pay costs after driving at 172mph on the A420?

Here’s a clue:

Of Tim Brady, in sentencing, Judge David Morton had the following to say:

“Your driving was criminally self-indulgent and utterly thoughtless of the danger you might be creating for the innocent.”

Of Mark Milton, on acquitting, District Judge Bruce Morgan made these comments:

“Those who get their (advanced level driving) certificates should be able to familiarise themselves with it. We have to live in the real world. Criminals are not so considerate as to only commit their offences in broad daylight and then make their getaway on traffic-free roads.

‘I am told that advanced drivers have to keep their skills finely tuned in the same way that batsmen don’t walk to the crease at Lord’s without practising - batsmen have spent countless hours in the nets, learning and re-learning and digesting their art.”

It is quite clear that Morgan bent over backwards to acquit Mark Milton, and by now I’m sure you can tell why: Milton is an inconsiderate tosser who’s also a policeman, but Brady’s just an inconsiderate tosser. The extent of the judiciary’s bias against prosecuting police officers in this country is profoundly worrying. I do suppose, though, that we really can’t have much of a chance of prosecuting officers for dangerous driving if we can’t even prosecute them for murder.

Thankfully, it looks as though this officer at least has a chance of being more appropriately sentenced for his crime: the DPP has appealed and one Lady Justice Hallen has allowed the appeal to go forward, saying that his driving ability was irrelevant to the case. Well… no shit.