A judge slammed police who called in their force plane in a bid to prove a motorist committed a minor traffic offence.
Officers used the Cheshire Police Piper Highlander plane to photograph road markings from the air to help prosecute Steven Tarry.
Mr Tarry, 50, who works as a Frank Sinatra impersonator, was accused of being spotted by officers using a mobile phone while driving, which carries a three-point penalty and a £60 fine, and veering over a white line on a junction of the A55 – a charge which also carries a £60 fine. But when he contested the charges, police got the force plane to fly over the scene to take an aerial picture.
The case was eventually kicked out of court and the judge has criticised police for wasting public money.
It also emerged they could have obtained the same image free on the internet. Mr Tarry, from Irlam, who works as a health and safety lecturer as well as performing as ‘Manc Sinatra’ at charity events, was pulled over near Chester last June.
He was charged with using his mobile and crossing the white lines of a prohibited zone on a slip road. When the case came to Northwich magistrates' court, the police aerial photograph was included in evidence to prove the prosecution case.
Officers argued it showed the alleged offences took place on a particularly dangerous part of the slip road.
Mr Tarry was cleared of using his mobile after showing he had a hands-free kit in his car. He was found guilty of crossing the white line but appealed, and the case went to Knutsford Crown Court. Mr Tarry eventually won the appeal after his solicitors showed that he had been incorrectly summonsed.
Chris Sweetman, who represented Mr Tarry, said: “The entire legal process has put Mr Tarry through an enormous amount of pressure, not to mention the astonishing cost billed at the taxpayers’ expense.
“I understand that every time the force plane is used the minimum cost is about £1,500.”
Mr Tarry said: “I felt the police totally over-reacted. I just think the whole case was an unbelievable waste of money.”
In court, Judge Dutton said it was ‘a serious waste of public monies to use a force aircraft for this purpose’ and that ‘it would be funny if it wasn't such a waste of money’.
Cheshire Police defended the decision to use the force aircraft to gather the evidence – and claimed the plane was already in the area on other business.
Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
Al Capone of Atherton, Atherton (04/02/2010 at 09:39)
Gringo The Mexican Mancunian (04/02/2010 at 09:48)
Rob Wilson (04/02/2010 at 10:09)
jordy, Middleton (04/02/2010 at 10:24)
dessie, manchester (04/02/2010 at 10:28)
Gringo The Mexican Mancunian (04/02/2010 at 10:45)
2) I very much doubt that the plane's only job for the day would be to tke a photo of that section of road it would have been on a massive list of "things to do" while up and about.
3) The crown demands proof beyond all reasonable doubt... so when the proof and evidence is submitted the judge slams the cops for providing it... the only reason this chap was not convicted was because of a loophole of sending of the summons, not the fact he had not comitted the offence...as I said previously what would have happened should a fatal collision resulted in this chaps flouting of traffic laws?
Gringo The Mexican Mancunian (04/02/2010 at 11:03)
Sam Anderson (04/02/2010 at 11:03)
Sam Anderson (04/02/2010 at 11:04)
citycentre, manchester (04/02/2010 at 11:18)
Mark,Radcliffe. (04/02/2010 at 11:24)
RT, UK (04/02/2010 at 11:27)
Perhaps those who believe in the Police and Councils using post offence evidence will not object to covert cameras, communication taps in their homes. Should there be anything that could be thrown in as evidence. A casual remark or suchlike. These are of course the powers given by this present Big Brother Government (in case you leave your rubbish bin slightly open for instance).
TheRealWorld (04/02/2010 at 11:30)
Another case of getting off on a technicality and throwing mud at the cops.
He WAS using his phone, he DID cross the line. He got off because of an error with the summons.
That plane, as someone pointed out earlier, probably had 50 jobs to do on that flight, this being one of them. So £1500 split between 50 jobs is about £30 I reckon.
But the press like over egging the oudding don't they?
If this man kills someone the next time he is on his mobile on the wrong side of the road, lets hear you all rant about the cops then and I hope that this judge will stand up and be counted.
Brook Lands (04/02/2010 at 11:30)
Sam Anderson
What, do you mean letting a dangerous driver off or slating the police for submitting evidence?
When in Rome (04/02/2010 at 11:31)
Hurry O'Caine - the Irish Whirlind, Typhoon Tipperary (04/02/2010 at 11:39)
The police are not ordering fleets of drones. Talk about being frightened of shadows ....
Splat!, Utopia (04/02/2010 at 12:07)
tiggerluc, somewhere in shaw (04/02/2010 at 12:11)
Bertie McGrew , Northern Countryside (04/02/2010 at 12:21)
Being taught to pass the test does not equipe anyone to drive a car. Roadcraft isnt taught, it's a skill developed and unfortunately no-one takes the time to develop the skill anymore.
This is being spouted from a LandRover Discovery driver, who actually does own the road!
Some days ago it was being suggested that we should all be re-tested every 5 years, a suggestion that I totally agree with. However it would be sensible to include road sense in the re-test and possibly in a simulator first before being taken out in busy traffic.
Hurry O'Caine - the Irish Whirlind, Typhoon Tipperary (04/02/2010 at 12:24)
Black Flag (04/02/2010 at 12:28)
Frightened of plans laid out in documents released by a Home Office backed quango under Freedom of Information rules might be a more appropriate description:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/23/cctv-sky-police-plan-drones
Hurry O'Caine - the Irish Whirlind, Typhoon Tipperary (04/02/2010 at 12:31)
Tazz, Irlam Manchester (04/02/2010 at 12:37)
1, I did not cross the white line I am an Advanced Driver for LGV 1, I am also a CPCS instructor covering Health & Safety issues in construction and whilst this doesn’t prove I didn’t cross the line it shows due diligence on my part for taking the time and paying for extra driving tuition which is normally given and tested by ex serving traffic officers.
I take the driving of any vehicle as a serious matter each vehicle is a potential weapon my own family has suffered from losses of younger members from bad and drunk drivers.
2, The offence of using the mobile phone was found not guilty due to the fact that I did have a car kit fitted and it was in use on the day, the alleged call was taken as an incoming call when I was stationary at the top of the off ramp sat at traffic lights.
The officer mistakenly said I had the phone in my hand which was not the case. If the officer had looked into the car he would have seen the kit fitted to the dashboard.
3, Too many people admit to offences which they genuinely believe they did not commit, purely on the basis that it is cheaper in the long run and saves them hassle in court, which generally finds with the officer which in turn leads to a bigger fine and court costs.
Is this right?
If I had broken into a house stole money or beat up the owner I would have been given Legal Aid. This is not the case for a motoring offence; the odds are greatly stacked against the individual from the start.
How many of you have points that you honestly shouldn’t have?
I partly because of my daily job but mainly because I didn’t commit the crime I felt I had to fight the case. I now owe the bank a considerable amount of money, which I will eventually get back (possibly 3 – 9 months), when fined for the White Line offence I was given a week to pay the full amount £540.00.
I have a great respect for the Police Force in general they do a job I would not like to do and they deal with situations that we as the general public would not ever contemplate could happen, I have and will continue to support them at charity events if they want me to.
This whole affair is massively overinflated.
4, I am in fact 54
This is my web site: Manksinatra.co.uk
Regards Mank
Sam Anderson (04/02/2010 at 12:44)
Army Surplus Special, bringing up the rear. (04/02/2010 at 12:45)
Fair enough if the plane was sent up just for this purpose but if the plane was already in the area, why should they be slammed by the judge.. They should be commended for killing 'two birds with one stone'..