1. Mens Rea
For any CRIME to have been committed, there must be TWO components:
Actis Rea (the action), and Mens Rea (the intent). It has long been
established - IN LAW - that BOTH components are necessary before
anyone can be found "Guilty" of anything.
So what (do you think) was the INTENT of anyone clocked by a Speed
1. To injure someone? Including themselves, quite possibly?
2. To get safely to their destination, without any injury to anyone?
(As quickly, and safely, as possible)
What do you think? If you go with (2), above, then NO CRIME HAS BEEN
COMMITTED ... and therefore NO-ONE is "Guilty" of anything ... IN
"To get to a destination" is perfectly LAWFUL
"Without injury to anyone" is perfectly LAWFUL
"Quickly" is PERFECTLY LAWFUL
"Safely" is perfectly LAWFUL
(So "What's your beef, Judge?")
Just because there is only one person named on Driving Insurance
DOES NOT MEAN that "There is only one possible individual who
could have been driving at the time" (something they always
LOVE to assume).
Someone else ... with Fully Comprehensive Insurance of their
own, can "Drive a vehicle with the Owner's consent"
(This is, of course, ignoring the fact that you are NOT "The Owner"
... but actually nothing more than "The Keeper" ... but if they gave
that game away ... they would be screwed.
It also ignores that fact that "Travelling" is what one is doing ...
not "Driving" (defined as "Conducting commerce on the highway" ...
e.g. Bus Driver, Taxi Driver.
And that you travel in a "conveyance" ... NOT a DVLA-controlled
(I will be using as much as I can of this ... in Derbyshire)