I want to take this discussion & evidence onto the subject of modern travel, now. In this modern time that equates not to Horse, or Cart or Horse Drawn Coach.. but to the Motor vehicle. (car)
We have a few specific laws giving direct exemption to offences when vehicles (or anything) is under our control. for certain purposes.
The Criminal Damage act 1971 section 5 sets out some exemptions where danger or risk is concerned.
Here we have the Emergency vehicles...
Police, Fire, Ambulance.
We need to understand that the LAW is worded quite specifically.
Where as "policy" is not the law. It is only the operating rules of the respective authorities that their standards for themselves demand. And this is only for themselves for assurance of providing the safest & best service. It is not the bottom line of the law.
Here is a .pdf from the
Ambulance service.
www.eastamb.nhs.uk/Policies/clinical/Driving-Standards-Policy.pdfYou will see that under 6 & 7 it sets out procedure brief for (Discontinuation) of N.I.P. notices from the police by the Higher Ranking Officers providing the relevant documentation to the Police. They have a similar procedure also for "trainee drivers"
I believe that these procedures are simply a check to acknowledge the (purpose) the vehicle was being used for & details of the Call or incident being attended. And that is recognized & the Legislation is applied to effect "discontinuation"
Simply... recognition. of a RIGHT..
The Driver had a LEGAL RIGHT to have acted.. (It was correct & Right in Law for them to act that way) Therefore it is recognised by the other party that no offence is committed on that occasion.
Simple.
This is where... (Police purposes) is open to interpretation and application as its stated in the law. And Criminal Damage act section 5. When there is a Right or Privilege to have acted. Even if it might have been dangerous or a risk.
I want to again explore comparisons in STYLE and ART of the WORDING OF THE LAW...
We looked at the "Lords Prayer" compared to the "Right to petition".
I believe that the author of this modern law, the composer has drawn inspiration, art and style from the very poetic medium of that Bill of Rights..
For its evident in the exemption of Police, Ambulance & Fire vehicles.. in the Respective acts.. that the wording shares the same taste, style and form of expression that leaves it open to be used and applied as and where required as long as we can identify..
1. a purpose / Reason for acting
2. An instance that is presented where the aforementioned power needs to be exercised or can be.
keeping in mind our findings on Hue & Cry where it may no longer be COMPULSORY for the public to assist the Police in law Enforcement. But the Law does not say the public "Cannot" choose to engage in actions for Policing Purposes.. And Driving a vehicle cannot be any different from the other actions.. Citizens Arrest & Crime Reporting. All are Policing purposes.
(a) Recognition of vehicles being used for "ambulance purposes"
It actually confirms that the emergency drivers should all have appropriate training, but doesn't say they MUST. As the legislation doesn't require it.
Parliament website information
publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmtran/105/105we64.htmI believe that if a husband is truly transporting his wife to hospital in a pregnancy or otherwise seriously injured and the private vehicle is being used as an Ambulance with sufficient evidence to provide the police...
The law does provide for that to comply within the law provision. And the driver has a legal right to act as the provision permits. And that should be processed as a rights claim.. In the same manner as any other Ambulance driver.
Its therefore not a defence material or mitigating circumstances. Its clearly exercising a legal right.
The driver acts rightly under the provisions of law, commits no offence. To claim the right... sufficient documentation is provided to the party dealing with the charge. For discontinuation.
This can be applied in the same manner, in fact it should.. where policing purposes are claimed by any driver. Even a non constable.
The Criminal procedure rules, overriding objectives part 1, provides for the prosecutor to be required to recognize when a right is claimed (legal right to have acted within provisions of law).
This is not to be construed as entering a defence or submitting defence material. Nor is it mitigating circumstances.
It is the claiming of a Legal right, under the Human Rights act 1998 and Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 part 1 overriding objectives.
All parties must recognise and apply.
As they evidently do with Ambulance drivers, Firefighters and police officers.
When a valid claim is submitted. *
Through the aforementioned procedures